Some student members on college boards of management were able to make very effective contributions to full board meetings and board committee meetings. However, the procedures used in board of management meetings were sometimes intimidating for younger or less experienced students and it was difficult for them to contribute confidently without effective induction, training and support. Lack of experience and confidence could lead to missed opportunities to make important points. Poor continuity in student representation from year to year also reduced its overall effectiveness. More generally, students had a low awareness of the role associated with their membership of the college board of management.
The most significant contribution to quality improvement through college committees was through representatives on programme committees (often called course committees or course teams). With the exception of academic boards, few other college committees in most colleges had student members. The system of course representation was valued by staff and provided useful feedback from students, particularly full-time students. However, it was difficult for colleges to get some groups of students to participate and student attendance at meetings was often erratic. Overall, the system worked less well for part-time students, online learners and those in outreach centres.
Students and staff valued their informal contacts very highly. Many students, including part-time students and apprentices, regarded informal contacts as the most important and effective way of raising issues with the college. Staff and students also regarded guidance time and interviews as a good way for staff to get feedback from students. However, most colleges did not have systems for ensuring that any themes in the issues raised in this way by students were collated at college level.
Colleges provided varying degrees of support for students’ associations, including funding for a full-time sabbatical post for the president in a small number of colleges. Support was most effective where there was a nominated staff member to act as a link between the students’ association and the college as a whole. Poor communications between staff and students and among students reduced the effectiveness of student representation in more than a few colleges. SPARQS training and other support was starting to have an impact on the effectiveness of learner participation and it was valued by colleges and by the students and staff who had participated.
Questionnaires were used across the FE sector as one of the primary means of getting feedback from students. They were helpful in providing statistics for the college on client satisfaction and in identifying strengths and weaknesses. At other levels in colleges, staff used questionnaires for programme and unit evaluation but, in many colleges, there was not sufficient consistency of approach from year to year or across departments. Staff also used questionnaires for evaluating college services. Questionnaires were useful in reaching groups of students who were less well represented in other ways. While questionnaires could provide useful data and trend information about student satisfaction, the integrity of the results depended on the students’ attitude to them. Focus groups gave colleges an effective way of getting a more reflective view from students, often on specific issues.
Learners had influence on college self-evaluation and decision making in a number of ways, but were not usually involved directly in either. They had most impact and influenced developments in practical matters such as timetabling, resources to support their learning and college recreation and canteen facilities. There was little detailed student involvement in discussion or reflection on learning and teaching.
There had not been significant changes in the arrangements for student representation in colleges since the HMIE report Learner Representation in Quality Assurance Arrangements in Scottish Further Education Colleges was published in 2002. However, colleges were now starting to recognise that learners have a contribution to make in learning and teaching as well as other areas of student life. SPARQS involvement over the past two years had also started to raise awareness among students of the importance of student representation, and the student voice now had a significantly higher profile in HMIE reviews.
The range of approaches adopted for establishing students’ views was recognised in a number of recent HMIE reports. For example, the HMIE review report on John Wheatley College in 2005 reported that:
The college used a good range of methods to gather the views of learners and staff on the learning experience and the provision of key support services. Learners expressed their views through class representation on course committees and in focus groups. The college used inclusive strategies to collect views from groups that might otherwise have been excluded, and the quality team provided analyses of survey outcomes for review purposes.
At Angus College in 2005, HMIE reviewers observed that:
Learners made their views well understood through their involvement on programme teams, via regular questionnaire surveys and through good working relationships with staff throughout the college.
At Falkirk College (now Forth Valley College) in 2004, the HMIE report noted that:
A strong feature of the college ethos was the high commitment by all staff to obtaining and analysing regular feedback from students.
Overall, most learners were content with the ways open to them for raising issues of concern and were satisfied that the college and its staff would treat seriously any matter that they raised. However, across the sector apathy and lack of commitment within certain groups of students, and college systems that did not fully involve all sectors of the student population reduced the overall impact of representation.