Memorandum submitted by the National Union
of Students (NUS)
ABOUT NUS
1. NUS (National Union of Students) is a
voluntary membership organisation comprising a confederation of
local student representative organisations in colleges and universities
throughout the United Kingdom that have chosen to affiliate. We
have nearly 750 constituent members—virtually every college
and university in the country. NUS represents the interests of
around five million students in further and higher education throughout
the United Kingdom. It provides research, representation, campaign
work, training and expert advice for individual students and students'
unions.
SUMMARY
2. NUS particularly welcomes the Foster
Review's emphasis on empowering the learner voice. Despite claiming
to provide an adult learning environment, FE colleges all too
frequently fail to allow students any input into the education
they receive. NUS conducted a survey (NUS, September 2005) amongst
FE students' unions and the results show that provision for student
representation in the sector is patchy, under-resourced and under-funded.
3. NUS urges the Government to use the opportunity
presented by the Foster Review recommendations and the imminent
White Paper to continue the transformation of the FE sector by
implementing an effective and overtly valued system of student
representation. This system should support and motivate students
as co-creators of their own learning and helps colleges to create
and embed a complementary responsiveness to their learners' voice.
4. NUS believe that the best way of achieving
this is by creating a legal requirement for a minimum structure
of student representation within FE colleges. This should be enforced
through a formal audit trail, including linking it to colleges'
move towards greater self-regulation. Adequate funding is also
absolutely essential as Foster recommended that student representatives
must receive training and be supported by mentoring staff who
have received training. With these measure in place, we can be
assured of colleges' commitment to the principles of engaging
with their learners as essential co-producers of desired educational
outcomes.
5. NUS would also like to use the opportunity
of the Committee's investigation into Further Education to raise
important issues relating to the curriculum and to funding. NUS
believes that there is a clear danger for a two tier system to
emerge within the FE sector, which will favour Sixth Form Colleges
(SFC), who focus on delivering academic qualifications to high
achieving pupils, at the expense of General Further Education
(GFE) Colleges, who deliver a wide range of qualifications to
learners of all abilities. We believe that the solution to this
would be the creation of a Level 2 general education option which
"fits the learner rather than the learner fitting the curriculum".
This would be based on "phase not age", with pupils
taking the examinations when they are ready to do so rather than
at a set age. This flexible approach to FE would diminish the
stark differences between the two types of FE providers.
6. In terms of funding, NUS would like to
highlight the 13% funding gap between schools and FE colleges.
This has a particularly worrying race aspect, as FE colleges have
much higher rate of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Foster and Learner Voice
7. NUS was pleased to play an active and
substantial role in Sir Andrew Foster's Review of Further Education.
His recommendations on the "learner imperative", threaded
throughout his report, represent a real opportunity to substantiate
a voice for the "neglected middle child" of the education
system. In particular, we are pleased with Foster's recommendations
that "FE colleges should consult learners on major issues
impacting on their learning environment. This should be part of
a college learning entitlement" and "The Government
should ensure that there is more training for learner representatives
in colleges to ensure they are equipped to participate effectively."
8. FE perceives itself as offering a uniquely
adult environment for socially, economically and culturally diverse
learners. Its demography successfully includes second chance learners;
learners who have less access to social, economic and cultural
capital; and those who traditionally undervalue educational opportunity,
but can nonetheless transform themselves through it. However,
the reality is that FE's "Adult Environment" is partly
mythological. Our students report that it is often conservative,
paternalistic and run in the interests not of learners but of
colleges as providers, who market but do not deliver the expected
adult environment.
9. This reality is amply illustrated through
the development survey that NUS conducted amongst students' unions
in FE colleges in 2004-05. The results show that arrangements
for student representation are extremely patchy in the FE sector.
Whilst some colleges have implemented effective systems, others
lack adequate resources and training, and others still remain
completely non-existent. Of the 373 FE colleges affiliated to
NUS, approximately 35% do not even have a functioning students'
union. The survey gathered the responses of students' unions that
are more established, so members should note that the true picture
is considerably worse than even that presented by this survey.
10. A complete copy of the survey accompanies
this submission.[1]
However we draw members' attention in particular to the following
statistics:
11. The survey found that the average level
of funding for students' unions is only 0.02% of a college budget,
translated as approximately £5,000 per annum. Further, 19%
of students' unions reported that they receive no funding at all.
12. One third of students' unions do not
have seats on academic boards, and only 57% have seats on other
college committees.
13. 21% reported that the student governor
is not elected, and 23% of colleges do not provide funding for
trainers.
14. Whilst most colleges (92%) indicate
that they do have a course representative system, half report
that the course representatives do not sit on the course/faculty
boards, and 73% do not provide any training.
15. The majority of students' unions report
that the college does not consult them when they are devising
college procedures for complaints, discipline, health and safety
and campus security.
16. NUS believes that this lack of consultation
with, and representation by, students, has a damaging effect on
quality, outcomes, motivation and the very perception of education
by those whom the sector seeks to transform. Because Foster made
an overdue, welcome and considerable effort to listen to and reach
out to our members across the sector, he accurately identified
this mismatch between intention and practice.
17. It is also worth noting that the Foster
Report's recommendations on the "learner voice" match
into a range of government policies:
— public sector reform that seeks to
empower the "user" through "the public value discourse";
— quality improvement models for public
sector providers;
— citizenship in post-16 education
and decline in political and civic participation;
— widening participation and the "English
social justice model".
Curriculum
18. NUS would like to raise again a set
of interrelated issues we brought to Sir Andrew Foster's attention
during the course of his Review, and which remain unresolved.
This issue is the development of the 14-19 and adult curricula,
and creating the most effective institutional, organisational,
funding and quality assurance infrastructure to deliver this.
19. The FE sector is hugely diverse, delivering
education and training ranging from Basic Skills to Level 4 to
over four million learners of all ages in a wide variety of settings
and modes of study. However, within this diverse sector, there
are sharp differences between two types of post-16 institutions,
namely between General FE colleges (GFEs) and Sixth Form Colleges
(SFCs). What we have here is a division of 14-19 versus adult
provision; academic versus vocational (the 14-19 White Paper,
DfES February 2005); and Level 3 versus Level 2 (14-19s have an
entitlement up to Level 3, adults do not). GFE's provide the widest
and most educationally inclusive post-16 and adult curriculum
on offer. GFE's make provision for all ages and all levels of
prior attainment and a vast range of subjects. On the other hand,
SFC's focus on academic subjects and cater almost exclusively
to 16-19-year-olds with a certain level of attainment, measured
through number of GCSE's obtained.
20. NUS believes that there is a clear danger
that a two-tier system will emerge within FE, based on academic
versus vocational education. We also believe that it is overly
optimistic to believe that this will be a system where academic
and vocational education have a parity of esteem, because vocational
education is inevitably seen as remedial. 46% of young people
at age 16 do not achieve five good GCSE's (A*-C) and are therefore
effectively barred from SFC's. These young people can go on to
study for a vocational qualification in GFC's of course, but there
is a clear danger that GFE's are then associated with lower levels
of achievement.[2]
21. Geoff Stanton argued in his curriculum
paper for the Foster Review that because there is no post-16 general
education option at Level 2 (or below) that is not GCSE repeats,
this lack of flexible progression routes for the "bottom
45% will remain our Achilles' heel". Similarly, due to this
lack of an appropriate general education option at Level 2, vocational
education remains "indelibly associated with lower levels
of achievement".[3]
22. NUS believes that this is indeed "an
Achilles heel" in the FE system, a major, structured lack
of differentiation in the current, post 14-19 White Paper curriculum
toolkit available to GFEs that forces the learner to fit the curriculum
on offer, rather than making a flexible curriculum offer that
fits the learner.
23. This danger is only compounded by the
fact that all of these routes for the 46% who do not achieve "five
good GCSEs or equivalents at 16" are associated with GFE
institutions. But it surely follows that for the 46% of students
with nowhere else to go, the GFE should have the most flexible
curriculum offer, a wide range of progression routes and high
quality student support. That is currently not a nationally underwritten
curriculum offer, although some GFEs are building this kind of
Level 2 post-16 general education option locally: NUS would cite
Lewisham College, Newham College and City of Bristol College as
exemplars in this context.
Funding
24. There is an equally urgent need to fund
colleges fairly—ie in comparison to schools—as the
2005 publication of the delayed LSDA Report[4]
commissioned by the LSC shows. Since then, the DfES has also published
useful FE participation statistics[5]
that show that the proportion of black (African and Caribbean)
students aged 16 studying in FE colleges at Level 2 and above
is 14%. This compares to their distribution in the general population
of 8%. Similar data from the 2002 Youth Cohort Study[6]
shows that, when SFCs and GFEs are taken together, 22% of Black
16-year-olds are studying in state schools, 57% are studying in
FE. Similar, though slightly less stark figures (in each case
just over double the school-college proportions) are shown in
the same study for Pakistani and Bangladeshi students.
25. NUS is not suggesting here that these
proportions and their relation to funding differentials are in
any way deliberate. However, an unintended consequence of the
13% funding gap is that there is a de facto ethnic dimension to
funding outcomes, an insupportable and contradictory aspect of
FE's diversity that should be immediately addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
26. In response to the Foster Review, NUS
has developed specific proposals that will help the FE sector
to become genuinely transformative and adult.
Learner Representation/Student Representative
Bodies
27. NUS recommends that every college be
required to establish, fund and recognise an effective learner
representation system, based on effectively supported and trained
student representatives.
28. These student representative bodies
should be an integral part of colleges' quality improvement and
curriculum development regimes. Colleges should be initially audited
by Ofsted in order to ensure compliance, and this should eventually
develop into an internal, learner focused quality improvement
machinery. Colleges would be monitored on the sufficiency and
adequacy of the support given to the development of such structures,
which would operate inside the existing legislative framework
of the 1994 Education Act, with a model based around "initiating"
of student representative activity rather than mere consultation
or feedback. Auditors must be satisfied that such a system is
in place before any move by a college from self-assessment to
self-regulation.
29. Foster's "college learning entitlement"
recommendation should translate into a similar responsibility
to consult with learners as that placed on schools in the Education
Act 2004. The only difference should be a greater focus on collective
autonomy and initiation. All such bodies should be recognised
and regulated as legally autonomous bodies under the 1994 Education
Act, as befits the "adult" and "developmental"
ethos of further education colleges, again with a focus on "initiating"
activity from student leaders with support from colleges where
students seek to positively "initiate or resist change"
(Sir Bernard Crick saw these as core citizenship activities, particularly
in an educational setting)
30. The Government, through the newly formed
Quality Improvement Agency (QIA), should fund and prioritise a
national learner representation development initiative. This would
be implemented in partnership with NUS and should be modelled
on the successfully embedded "Sparqs" programme in Scotland.
The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) will report
in early March on their scoping exercise, designed to evaluate
approaches to develop learner representation in QI systems. This
report could be used to set the agenda and parameters for this
work in the QIA's work plan with colleges.
31. In order to be effective, the student
representative bodies need to be adequately funded. The development
of student representative bodies would be core funded locally
and development funded nationally in partnership with NUS. NUS
seeks funding to effectively establish a workable model of FE
Students' Unionism and its continual development. This would be
delivered through an NUS FE Development Unit that would set national
targets for participation and support, and have as its goal the
establishment of local support, funding and structures for learner
representation activity, ie the development of whole college policies.
The Unit would develop materials for providers, unions, student
reps and students, and run training for student leaders on leadership,
team working, lobbying and negotiation skills, as well as modelling
best practice through guides and materials on democratic participation,
diversity, campaigning and learner led enrichment activity.
32. Students' Unions play a key role in
fostering a sense of self-advocacy amongst students. However,
NUS' survey showed that they suffer from poor funding and cannot
always do an adequate amount of work in this area. Whilst students'
unions currently receive an average of 0.02% of a college's budget
as funding, NUS believes that a minimum level should be set at
0.05%.
33. Because NUS is acutely aware that there
are a disproportionate number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
students in the learning and skills sector as opposed to schools,
NUS therefore proposes it be supported to provide a focused effort
to engage BME students in representative structures. This would
involve targeted support to deliver confidence-building and skills
training; the formalisation of strategies to incorporate diversity
perspectives as the norm; production of the NUS Black students'
guide to support and assist both students and senior college managers
in meeting the challenges of recognising and respecting cultural
diversity.
34. NUS is amazed that many students are
denied the opportunity to take part in citizenship activities,
often under the threat of losing their EMA. We therefore call
for a nationally agreed protocol, between NUS, AoC and the DfES
on balancing the right of students to take part in representative
activities, with the responsibility to attend scheduled classes
and other learning activities. This also requires a small drafting
change to current advice on EMA entitlement.
Corporation/Governing Body
35. Experience shows that where colleges
have a functional student representative system and an adequately
supported students' union there is a better chance of having the
"right" skills and knowledge within the student stakeholder
group. NUS' research demonstrates that where learner representation
is absent—especially at course level—the lack of a
supportive system of engagement with learners diminishes learner
voice at Corporation level despite mandatory student membership.
Thus NUS recommends:
36. There should be a minimum of two and
a maximum of three student members on every college corporation
to improve the effectiveness, representativeness and diversity
of "the student voice". Student governors have continually
reported to NUS that they feel more confident having another student
member in the room, and this is the only way to ensure that the
"student voice", part of the moral ownership of a college,
is not swamped by sheer numbers.
37. Each corporation should be required
to have a Student Affairs Sub Committee, made up of students.
This is common practice in HE, and there is no reason why it should
not become so in FE. The Student Affairs Sub Committee of each
college would focus on student issues, student related policies
and matters of concern raised by the student representative body.
It would also be responsible for supervising the requirements
in Foster for colleges "to collect learners' views in a consistent
and systematic way as a key way of improving college provision"
and "consult learners on major issues impacting on their
learning environment". It would act as a means whereby the
board could, as a whole, communicate through a key stakeholder
group to the "moral ownership" of the institution. Some
colleges, eg Chichester College and Derby College, have developed
such arrangements successfully.
38. Student members of Corporations should
be adequately trained, supported and mentored. Through its work
with the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) and the Association
of Colleges (AoC), NUS already trains almost 100 student governors
each year, and has developed an Open College Networks (OCN) qualification
for all participants in its "Toolkit" programme. We
now seek to expand that work, and ensure that the corporation
appoints a mentor for each of its student members.
39. All the above recommendations can be
encompassed in a requirement for colleges to create and appropriately
fund/support a "whole college policy" focused on Learner
Voice and Citizenship.
Staff Development
40. The existing role of a "Staff Student
Liaison Officer" (SSLO) should be clarified, substantiated
and developed as the key supportive role to facilitate learner
voice. Their role should develop in parallel with progress in
the personalisation of learning and the development of "expert
learner" frameworks, so that learners can become self-directed
advocates in and for their own learning both individually and
collectively. Whilst 88% of students' unions that responded to
the NUS survey reported that they are supported by a SSLO staff
member, 23% reported that they only receive two hours or less
face to face time with the SSLO per week. This is clearly insufficient.
41. The SSLO role must become professional,
innovative and responsive and be seen as the principle advocate
and supportive mentor of learner voice in a college. NUS currently
struggles to maintain a regional and national network to support
SSLO's. NUS research on FE Students' Unions shows that the role
is underdeveloped, under regarded and underpaid, receives little
or no professional development, has no clear entry criteria, is
starved of information and is inadequately blue-printed into college
management and performance systems.
42. NUS seeks to develop and support the
SSLO role to support nationwide collective student voice through
funding and support for development materials, support for a national
SSLO conference, development of a mailing list and resource group
and the creation of professional development activity.
43. Adequate funding is required to make
this a reality.
Learner Voice and the Skills Imperative
44. NUS recommends that each Sector Skills
Council be required to elect a full time learner advocate for
each area of training in further education to promote the profile
and effectiveness of skills training in the Further Education
sector. They would act as both advocate and critical friend to
the relevant skills sector. They would promote, inside an "expert
learner framework", sector specific initiatives to develop
individual learners to comment critically on their learning and
training; develop individual learners to become advocates in their
skill area to promote careers to school pupils and college learners;
develop communication between stakeholders in the skills area
at college, regional and national level; and develop professionalism
in areas of skills practice through the involvement of learners.
Student Complaints
45. NUS experience shows that the longstanding
system of complaint handling currently in place, whilst rational
and coherent, is both intimidating and opaque to learners because
it is seen to be biased towards providers. NUS would like to see
FE learners enjoy the same level of confidence that HE learners
have in their complaints procedures. Therefore, NUS recommends
that the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, or
an equivalent, be extended to cover the FE as well as the HE sector,
and that student representative bodies be trained and empowered
to support complainants constructively. NUS' proposal will give
confidence to learners, assist colleges in developing best practice
in dealing with complaints and ultimately improve learning outcomes
and experiences.
Learning and Skills Council
46. NUS recommends that Foster's recommendation
that "The LSC should establish local and national learner
panels to provide a stronger learner voice in determining local
needs" be implemented with NUS' support. A local students'
union has already, with NUS' support, engaged with their local
LSC to create such a learner panel. This, however, will not happen
locally, regionally or nationally unless the necessary support
for learner voice in colleges is made available.
Curriculum
47. A general education option at Level
2 that is not GCSE repeats needs to be developed. Geoff Stanton
usefully suggests modelling this on the largely successful Access
to HE Courses developed by local GFEs over the last 20 years.
48. Geoff Stanton also suggests that GFE's should
be able to offer "mezzanine qualifications" that have
more rungs in the ladder between Levels 2 and 3. The great advantage
of this proposal is that it can be done at a local college level
without altering the national qualifications framework. Such an
approach can also mix academic and vocational components, but
its great value for NUS is it makes the curriculum "fit the
learner rather than the learner fit the curriculum".
49. NUS views the age-specific staging of
GCSE assessment as flawed. GCSEs are a high-risk, terminal exam
system that learners have to take at 16 whether they are "ready
or not" to succeed. It is a gateway for those ready for it
at 16, but equally a cliff-face that those who are not ready (46%)
fail to climb. The concept of "phase not age" would
benefit everyone—fast track learners as much as those making
slower progress.
50. We also believe that FE should remain
"local" in nature.[7]
Similar to the process outlined in Footnote 7, we would suggest
that locally designed 14-19 qualifications should be developed
within a national validation framework. We would also suggest
that the logic of area inspections be expanded to include all
providers in a local area, what we have referred to as "a
local education ecology". There therefore remains an urgent
need to clarify key policies on "competition and collaboration"
in the provision of 14-19 education.
February 2006
1 Not printed. Back
2
The students at a predominantly vocational English Regional College
of FE close to a famous university-"XXXXXX Regional College"-refer
to their institution with studied irony as "XXXXXX Rejects'
College". Back
3
Presentation by G Stanton (University of Greenwich), Institute
of Education, 1 February 2005. Back
4
4 "The funding gap-Funding in schools and colleges for full-time
students aged 16-18", LSDA July 2005. Back
5
5 "Success for All Delivery Plan. Data Evidence-Final Report",
June 2005, DfES Learning and Skills Analysis Division. Back
6
6 "Youth Cohort Study. 16-year-olds in full-time education
by institution attended", 2002. Back
7
7 NUS. Response to 21st Century Skills: realising our potential.
NUS, September 2003. Chapter 6 of our response, "Qualifications
reform", we recommended that "the DfES, QCA, other devolved
administrations and funding agencies work in partnership and through
further consultation to elaborate a national quality assured system
enabling individual providers to respond to local skill formation
needs with appropriate local qualifications valued by learners
and employers alike" (op cit, p 36). Back
| 
