student representation and engagement: building the ... · • sector-leading teaching awards...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Student representation and
engagement: building the
partnershipJim Dickinson, Chief Executive
It takes two to tango
• Co-production
• Partnership
• Antidote to consumerism
3
October 1968: NUS & CVCP
“Effective student presence in decision making”
• Welfare Matters- joint decisions
• Academic & Institutional Matters- representation
• Staff Appointments- consultation
5
1980s
Course Representatives
• Staff/Student Committees
• System led approach to representation &
engagement interventions
Advocacy
• Welfare Advice
• Academic Appeals
Across the 1990s
• Significant interest in the importance of student engagement
• NUS: “Ultimate priority” for students’ unions.
– Partly driven by the need to respond to the student ‘consumer voice’ in a
differentiated fees system and
– Partly due to a willingness to make learning a partnership of coproduction
between the student/ learner and the academic
• Unprecedented degree of interest in the importance of the student voice
in shaping all aspects of the learning
• SU Funding & Business Model Reinvention
• Decline in commercial revenues
– Grant funding replaces commercial to support activities
– Grant funding increased to create support for engagement & representation
• Results in support led approach to representation & engagement interventions, focused on training & briefings
6
Across the 00s
• As the Government, further and higher education institutions
developed their own forms of direct engagement and
research on student needs, often bypassing student-led
organisations, the challenge to the student movement
was demonstrating the legitimacy and value of student
led organisations in truly representing the many voices
of a diverse student body?
• Cohort led approach to representation &
engagement interventions, focused on types of
students
The emerging agenda
• Recognition that participation of reps alone may not
be fully representative
• Diversity and scale of student body coupled with
cost of research tools reduction= evidence
• NSS leads this process nationally, with PTES and
PRES hot on heels
• Local evidence now crucial
• Evidence Led approach
7
Five decades of representation
• 70s Participation Led
• 80s System Led
• 90s Support Led
• 00s Cohort Led
• 10s Evidence Led
Five decades of representation
• 70s Participation Led
• 80s System Led
• 90s Support Led
• 00s Cohort Led
• 10s Evidence Led
8
Forms of engagement
Forms of engagement
1. Students’ union focused engagement where students discuss the
students’ union as an organisation, encourage participation in the SU, an
aspect of the SU (a specific campaign) and/or SU governance (e.g. general
meeting, elections, strategic planning, referendum etc)
2. Institution focused engagement to encourage student participation in
university quality assurance mechanism (e.g. attend committees, complete
surveys, course representation)
3. Student focused engagement which is about talking with all students
about their lives and experiences and using that knowledge to (re)define the
agenda for the students’ union and institution around student life
experiences. This is about shifting to a focus on outcomes rather than
processes.
9
Definition of Student EngagementStudent engagement means involving students as active participants
in the development, delivery, management and improvement of their
educational experience.
Students Want to be Heard
Where next?
CHERI student engagement report:
10
Course Reps in the Middle GroundCHERI student engagement report:
The majority of HEIs and FECs rate their student engagement processes,
comprising a basic model of student feedback questionnaires and student
representation systems, as reasonably or very effective; student unions are
less likely to do so.
There are a number of elements to the student representation process.
Institutions and student unions face a number of challenges in ensuring that
each element and the whole process are as effective as possible. Further,
the process seems to work better at the institutional and operational
(school/department/programme) level than at the intermediate (faculty) level.
Digby- Does it have an impact?
• Capacity
– Demonstrable ability to respond, skills, resources,
contacts, abilities, access, analysis
• Declaratory
– Demonstrable change in rhetoric, attitudes, beliefs, policy
statements
• Implementational
– Demonstrable change in delivery, resource allocation,
practice
11
A quote
• “The problem with “voice” is that most
research assumes that opinions and
beliefs just “exist”- of course, in truth
“opinions” are socially constructed in
exchange- which means that the
question and the questioner are usually
more important than the answer”• Nina Eliasoph, How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life
A quote
• “That’s why advocacy is more important,
because its focus is on the securing of
interests rather than the re-presentation
of some mythical view”• Nina Eliasoph, How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life
12
Who are we asking?
• Personal Reflexive Consumer
• Representative of reflexive
consumer views
• Stakeholder
• Owner
Who are we asking?
• The problem raiser
• The pleasure feeder backer
• The problem solver
• The political actor
13
What are they allowed to say?
• Teaching
• Learning and support for it
• Facilities and Services
• Organisation
Involving students – the what
JUST DO IT
AND DON’T
TELL ME
ABOUT IT
JUST DO IT,
BUT TELL
ME ABOUT
IT
BEFORE
YOU DO IT,
ASK ME
WHAT I
THINK
BEFORE YOU
DO IT, INVOLVE
ME IN THE
DECISION-
MAKING
14
Voice Tone
• Failure
• Expose
• Condemn
• Embarrass
• Defend
• Improve
• Critique
• Scrutinise
• Celebrate
• Influence
Eight Voice Considerations
• Voice Visibility- Is voice an obvious and credible function?
• Voice Volume- To what extent is it “in the face” of the institution?
• Voice Capture- Can we sense depth and breadth across the
institution? Can we track patterns and do comparisons?
• Voice Location- University Focussed, Union Focussed, Student
Focussed?
• Voice Content- Do I even want a voice in that?
• Voice Tone- Failure or improvement?
• Voice Owner- Reflexive Consumer? Representative?
Stakeholder? Owner?
• Voice Impact- Capacity, Declaratory, Implementational
15
Two Data Drivers
• QAA Institutional Review
• Public Information (QSU)
QAA Institutional Review
• Students are represented on institutional decision-making bodies both at central
and local levels.
• Students are supported in making their voice heard in decision-making bodies,
for example, through training or briefing.
• There are close links between senior institutional managers and students'
representative bodies.
• Effective arrangements are in place to gather feedback from students on their
learning experience and to act on that feedback.
• The results of the National Student Survey are used for enhancement of students‘
learning opportunities.
• Efforts are made to gain the views of 'hard-to-reach' students such as those
studying part-time or off-campus.
• The effectiveness of institutional policies and procedures for promoting the
contribution of students to quality assurance and enhancement are regularly
reviewed.
16
Exeter Guild
• A Research Co-ordinator coordinates qualitative and quantitative
research amongst the student body as directed by students, ensuring
that the union’s contributions to committees and policy are
representative of the widest range of student opinion. This involves
contracted in research capacity and student research assistants.
• An Academic Representation Co-ordinator provides direct support for
the academic representation function across the University. They provide
briefings, training, coaching and support for programme faculty and
cross university representatives.
• A Research and Representation Manager manages the team, leading
on key projects and providing policy support to the elected officers.
• High profile “academic leader” elections at the beginning of each
academic year.
• Direct support for union academic societies.
• Production of student “Visions for Education” - documents that set out
the direction students think the six faculties should be taking to offer a
world-class experience for students.
• Separate vision documents for Postgraduate Research students and for
INTO students.
• Sector-leading Teaching Awards which, last year, saw 2415 submissions
from students, recognising the outstanding work done by academics and
support staff across the University.
• Support for course-based volunteering projects.
17
Bath University
• A Representation & Research Manager
• An academic representation worker (focussed on
undergraduates)
• A postgraduate representation worker (focused
on PGT and PGR)
• Over 80% Academic Rep posts elected in on-line election annually.
• Over 1300 students voting in the Academic Rep elections annually
• Over 75% of students are aware of Academic Reps/believe they are important.
• Awareness of SU representing students’ academic interest to the University from
68% to 75%
• Understanding of department/school SSLC from 66.2% to 70%
• Understanding of Academic Rep System from 74.8% to 80%
• At least three annual campaigns in place with measurable impacts.
• At least 3 campaigns led by students each year for three years
• Awareness of Bath SU representing students’ interests to the University from
77% to 85%
• Agreement that Bath SU does a good job of representing students from 93.7% to
95%
18
Lancaster
• Education and Support Manager- Manages the
operations of LUSU Education and Support.
Responsible for overseeing educational research
activity, supporting LUSU policy creation,
developing support services and providing advice
to students.
• Education and Representation Officer- Supports
student representatives in departments, colleges
and across campus and gives advice.
• Education and Policy Officer- Supports policy,
governance, and research development.
Quality Students Unions
• Q23 so far only national stat
• HEFCE funded successor to SUEI
• 60 unions this year
• All over three years
• Part A and Part B
19
QSU
• Representation section considers how union effectively represents the views of
its members and the mechanisms and support used to achieve this.
• This is a problematic area for UUEAS given the historical and current low levels
of investment in this area.
• Auditors will look for commitment and support inside the union’s overall
infrastructure rather than just approach and opportunity for representation in the
university.
• Reaching an acceptable score in this criteria will therefore require some
investment in staff support; improved representation structures (ie split of
Academic Officer) inside the union; evidenced communication with and support
for student representatives across the university; and some investment in
research & projects.
• As this is acts a ceiling component failure to improve in this area would
significantly harm the overall quality mark score and our present activity level
would likely result in us being graded in the bottom third of unions overall.
University Relationship
• Landlord, funder and subject of efforts to improve
student experience
• Poor
• Corporate mistrust and suspicion
• Historical context of union believing it did not need
the university
• Block Grant funding low
• Separate v Autonomous
20
UK HE Students’ Unions
• Five “tree rings” of purpose:
– Activist politics and resolutions (70s)
– Advice and Alcohol (80s)
– Student Development (skills acquisition) (90s)
– Education & Representation (00s)
– Hyper Diversity & Partnership (10s)
• We remain lodged in the 80s model
• Affects underpinning assumptions, funding model,
reputation and mode of interaction
Where can the University help?
v
separate
integral yet
autonomous
21
Relationship
• Strategic Partnership; Spirit of partnership between HEI and SU
informing the strategic direction of both parties and informing service
agreements. Informed engagement of SU representatives in key
institutional decision-making bodies.
• Student Centred; Shared commitment to developing and improving
students’ experience of academia and extra-curricular aspects of their
lives.
• Respect & Understanding; Clarity about, and mutual understanding of,
the distinct roles of the HEI and the SU and the value that each party
brings to the relationship.
• Openness & Trust; Full, open, regular communication on relevant
issues, in particular issues likely to have an impact on the other party, the
student population and/or other joint stakeholders.
Relationship
• Mutual Support & Commitment; Constructive interactions Demonstrable
commitment to making the relationship work through investment of time and
resources.
• Autonomous; Recognition of the value of a strong, student-led Students’ Union
empowered to determine and manage its own affairs. Recognition of the need for
the HEI to balance the interests of a range of stakeholders within an increasingly
challenging external context.
• Accountability; Accountability of SU to HEI as supervisor (under the 1994
Education Act) and principal funder, within a mutually agreed framework which is
robust, effective, efficient and compatible with the reporting requirements of
other regulators (where relevant), such as The Charity Commission, the Office of
the Scottish Charity Regulator and/or Companies House. Acknowledgement by
HEI that the SU is a major stakeholder and primary body representing the student
voice.
• Diversity & Equality; A shared commitment to equality and diversity and the fair
treatment of all staff and students.
22
Advocacy Now
• Little evidence in use
• Little training or support for student reps
• Focus on win/lose and failure rather than improvement
• Problems don’t lead to solutions
Where we want to be
• Evidence and research from the whole student body
a key part of the union’s student voice activity
• More support, training and development for our
student representatives
• Students working with academic and administrators
to make suggestions and solve problems
• Independent, flexible student advice and advocacy
service that leads to policy change