Membership of the college board of management gave the student representative, normally the president of the students’ association, the opportunity to be involved in discussions of the major issues facing the college, and to gain a better understanding of college aims and objectives. The board of management was therefore a forum that enabled students to raise issues of importance to the student body at the highest level in the college. Normally, student members of college boards were also members of committees of the board, such as the learning and teaching committee or the student services committees where student affairs were considered, depending on the board structure. In one college, up to eight members of the students’ association were able to be members of the board’s student affairs committee. This raised significantly the profile of students’ views that were passed to the board through committee reports. In another college, it was open to the sabbatical student member to attend all of the board committees. Attendance at board committees gave student representatives opportunities to be involved in the more detailed discussion of issues and contribute to boards’ thinking, particularly if these committees’ views were represented effectively at the board. Membership of boards also involved students in the consideration of college strategic plans at normal board meetings or specific planning days. Overall, student membership of college boards contributed to transparency in college proceedings.
In general, student representatives on boards of management felt that their fellow board members asked for and listened to their views and treated them with respect. However, normal board of management business procedures did not always help students to contribute confidently unless they had benefited from induction to the system, training and ongoing support. Few students had had any experience that prepared them for their role on a board prior to coming to college. Many students attended college for only one year, particularly in colleges where there was a high proportion of students studying at FE level. A few presidents of students’ associations had previously spent a year as vice-presidents but most were in office for one year only, and a few had not had any prior involvement in the work of the students’ association. As a result, there was little continuity from year to year and students often found the role of student representative on the board to be challenging, particularly in respect of discussion of financial and estate matters. A few colleges had had difficulties in appointing a student representative to the board or keeping one in post for a whole year, often because of difficulties with the running of the students’ association. The result was that there was no student representative on the board or the incumbent changed during the year. Representatives were not always appointed in time to attend meetings early in the academic year. These factors significantly reduced the effectiveness of representation on the board and had a negative effect on student representation at other levels. NUS Scotland favours an arrangement that allows for two student representatives on a college board of management. At least one college has adopted this practice.
Staff in most colleges had taken a range of actions to engage students’ interest in college affairs. However, students in general had a low awareness of their college’s board of management or its membership, often because of a perception that it was not important for them or ineffective communications from the board itself. Some students simply wanted to concentrate on their own education and did not wish to be involved in representing others. Few had a clear understanding of their board’s responsibilities and activities, their board’s involvement in the governance and management of the college or their own representation on it through their association. In some cases, communication in the college was not effective enough in providing readily accessible information for students on the work of the board or its membership. Good support for the students’ association by college senior managers was important in making communication with students effective and in informing students about their representation at this level. This support encouraged staff and the students’ association to work together using a range of media, including the intranet, to inform students.
Similar representation issues have arisen in further education colleges in England.
| Some approaches in England |
In England the instrument of governance introduced in 2000 made it compulsory for colleges to have at least one student governor on their governing bodies. One college in England had created the role of governor emeritus to maintain continuity of learner representation from year to year and to help preserve "the college collective memory". This person was appointed for an indefinite period and did not have voting powers. The governor emeritus was also chair of the student services committee and had regular contact with learners and their representatives through the college student union. The college had introduced a system whereby the governor emeritus was accompanied by a student observer to help with succession planning, but also to offer support and advice to the governor emeritus where necessary. The possibility of a parent governor had been suggested in England. The NUS (UK) in its response4 to Sir Andrew Foster’s review of further education in England5 advocated that there should be at least one parent governor as a board member of an FE college. With current levels of activity involving the under-16 age group set to expand in the future, the NUS (UK) felt that this was an appropriate step to take. A Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) paper6 summarised the key findings from a study into student representation across the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA). The paper took the view that student involvement in representational bodies was an entitlement. One section considered how students and colleges could develop effective representation procedures. It defined the roles of principals and senior managers in illustrating how representational systems could work and how the student body could assume the representative roles effectively. |
Colleges took different approaches to student membership of cross-college committees. Where colleges had an academic board, it was common for a student to be a member. In a few colleges, no whole-college committees had student members. In others, students were involved in a range of committees where they had a contribution to make. Examples included equal opportunities, ICT and guidance. Staff considered that effective representation on college committees depended on the commitment, experience and skills of the individual student members and that these attributes were difficult to sustain from year to year, again because of the relatively short time spent in college by most learners.
Overall, learners were not widely involved in cross-college committees. However, an example of sector-leading and innovative practice was reported in the HMIE review of Dundee College in 2005. This related to student involvement in the financial support committee.
The student financial support committee comprised staff from a variety of support and teaching areas. It oversaw the disbursement of all student hardship and childcare funds available to the college. The committee had built on SFEFC and SAAS guidelines and involved student representatives to develop clear criteria to ensure transparency and consistency in the distribution of funds within an established framework.
The committee operated sensitively and flexibly to ensure that the background and needs of individual students were fully taken into account. Well-considered arrangements for disbursing funds and monitoring the effectiveness of arrangements also contributed to a comprehensive system that provided coherent support, impacted positively on retention, and maximised the benefits accruing to those learners who had serious financial barriers to overcome in their efforts to engage in lifelong learning.
Programme committees were key elements in college quality improvement systems. They had responsibility for the quality of aspects of planning and delivery of a single programme or a group of related programmes. Colleges normally required programme committees to meet up to three times in a year and to report on the quality of their programmes under a range of headings that were usually aligned closely to the SFEFC/HMIE quality framework for Scottish FE colleges.
Colleges adopted a range of approaches to student representation on programme committees and attendance at programme committee meetings. In most colleges, student representatives (often called course or class representatives) were selected by fellow students, volunteered or were asked by teaching staff to take on the role, usually during the first few months of the academic year. This selection process was often co-ordinated centrally, but in a few colleges it was left entirely to class tutors with the result that representation was not uniform across the college and the significance of the role was diminished. The course representative might represent a single class group or all the groups undertaking a programme. The former arrangement had the advantage that the representatives were known to their classmates. Also, staff felt that the course representatives’ confidence was likely to be higher when more than one representative attended a meeting with a group of teaching staff. Some staff thought it better that student representatives should not be elected early in the year, in order to give students time to get to know each other. For this reason or because of difficulties in finding volunteers it was common for student representatives not to be established in their role until late October. In a few cases, representatives were not appointed at all. In a few colleges, students were invited to express their views at staff-student liaison meetings or at meetings with the programme leader held some time prior to the formal programme team meeting. They did not then attend the programme committee meeting itself. Staff in colleges that used this system felt that this arrangement reduced the barrier to students who might feel inhibited from speaking at a formal programme committee meeting. However, it also reduced the student representatives’ direct involvement in programme committee business, self-evaluations and the decision-making process.
Colleges usually had standard agendas for programme team meetings and standard templates for reports. In most cases, learners would be asked to withdraw for some parts of the committee business in order to maintain confidentiality when other students were named. However, in some colleges, students only attended while the report of students’ views was under discussion. This significantly reduced their involvement. A few colleges required that students’ views were recorded separately in meeting reports and actions monitored clearly. In many other cases, learners who had raised issues through the course representation system were not informed in a systematic and timely way about progress on the points they had raised. Where feedback was left to the course representative, reliable information to students usually depended on the course representative attending the next meeting of the committee and, in turn, reporting back to the class group. The overall effect was to delay and reduce the reliability of feedback and leave students unclear as to the effectiveness of their interventions.
Few colleges had a written remit for student course representatives. Course representatives attended meetings and might also approach tutors outwith formal meetings to speak about class issues, or to act as supporters for classmates. A few students commented that they had little interaction with their course representative prior to or after programme committee meetings, while others did not know whether they were represented or who represented them. The majority of issues raised by students centred on practicalities such as timetabling, resources for their programme, learning materials or facilities in the college. Often, other matters were raised that were legitimate concerns but not the responsibility of the programme committee, such as canteen prices and availability of parking places. Student representatives were seldom involved in any detailed discussion of learning and teaching.
While these arrangements for student representation provided full-time students with opportunities to contribute to quality improvement, they were often less effective for part-time learners, online or distance learners and those in outreach centres. For a few colleges, this was because there were no systematic arrangements to include these groups in the process of student representation. More generally, part-time and outreach students were less likely to feel fully engaged in the college community. Teaching staff knowledge of their students was often high in small-scale outreach centres but the links from staff to college managers that enabled the student view to be represented were often less well established. Learners in outreach centres also faced practical difficulties in attending meetings at specific times or locations away from their normal centre. Staff noted that some groups of students were less likely to wish to act as course representatives than others. These less proactive groups included the engineering and craft students who were often in college as apprentices. Students from subject areas such as social sciences and creative arts were more likely to be involved. Lack of involvement did not necessarily indicate that students were apathetic about their experience in college, as many students felt that they could deal with most issues of concern through the teaching staff they knew. In general, students were less likely to be involved if they felt that the college was a secondary aspect of their lives.
The majority of comments on student representation in HMIE review reports were positive.
The HMIE review of mathematics at Cardonald College in 2003 noted that:
Student representatives on full-time programmes and relevant HE partners contributed fully to the programme review process.
Also, at South Lanarkshire College in 2003, HMIE reviewers reporting on the Quality assurance element observed that:
Student representatives on programme teams made valuable contributions to the review and evaluation of programmes.
However, at Central College in 2005, HMIE reported under Quality assurance that:
More than a few programme teams had not implemented effectively college procedures to enable learners to express their views through representation on programme teams or other means.
Across colleges, the system of student representation on programme committees was weakened in some subject areas and colleges by:
Overall, the system of course representation in colleges was a well-established part of college quality improvement systems. It was valued by students and welcomed by staff. It provided a direct way for students to speak to staff and the arrangements provided some assurance that their comments would be listened to and followed up if necessary. Students who acted as course representatives were of the view that staff treated their contributions seriously and tried to meet their needs. Colleges recognised the difficulties in getting students to participate and a number had taken action to encourage students to become course representatives. These actions included promotion during induction days and in college diaries, students’ handbooks and websites, as well as work with the students’ association to encourage participation. Some colleges had also changed the representation system to allow several students to attend meetings of the programme committee. Another college recognised students’ contributions in their role as course representative by giving them a certificate that recorded their involvement. Colleges were starting to recognise that this was one way of developing citizenship skills, sometimes making this explicit in college handbooks.
As noted previously, most students found that the clearest and most immediate way of expressing their views or raising a concern that related to their studies was to talk to a member of the teaching staff or to their programme leader. Almost all students knew whom they would approach about academic or personal matters. In general, students thought that informal arrangements were effective in dealing with issues at the level of their unit or programme, but accepted that they were less likely to be effective where some whole-college matter was involved, for example, the library’s opening hours or ICT provision. They cited a number of examples of issues raised by an individual learner or a group of learners directly with teaching staff that had been dealt with to their satisfaction. Almost all felt that college staff were approachable and concerned for learners’ academic and personal well-being. One student with additional learning needs contrasted this approachability with her experience of school - "they (the lecturers) don’t ignore what you tell them". These less formal approaches were of particular importance to part-time students or learners in outreach centres who were less likely to be involved in course representation arrangements, or to have easy access to central student services staff. Staff also found informal methods helpful in gathering students’ views and these views contributed to staff perceptions about student satisfaction.
Students frequently referred to involvement of student services staff as being an effective means of dealing with personal matters. One student referred to student services staff in his college as being "absolutely fantastic".
Timetabled guidance slots for class groups and one-to-one guidance interviews provided good opportunities for learners to discuss their progress and to raise any matters of concern. Arrangements for guidance time varied significantly between colleges and within some colleges, with most guidance time likely to be given to full-time students on programmes at FE level. Staff and students regarded regular timetabled guidance periods as effective in identifying concerns quickly, in dealing with them directly or in referring them to the appropriate person or group in the college. Similarly, one-to-one guidance interviews linked to personal learning planning were effective in identifying factors affecting the individual learner’s progress. Where the outcomes of these guidance interviews were compared and collated, they helped staff to identify whole-college themes for consideration by college managers. In one college a guidance forum of central specialists and teaching staff with a tutorial role met on a monthly basis. This was an effective way of enabling college staff to discuss and collate the main issues arising from student guidance sessions. However, this form of joined-up arrangement was rare.
The nature of the links between the senior staff and the students’ association or students in general varied significantly between colleges. Links were sometimes formalised by regular meetings between officers of the students’ association and college senior managers. One college introduced a Principal’s Question Time at which students put questions directly to the college principal. The session took place each month with minutes and action points recorded. This session provided learners with direct access to the principal with action points recorded to ensure progress on issues. However, in another college, there had in the past been a degree of suspicion between managers and the students’ association that had taken time to resolve. Most students were very positive about their engagements with college staff at all levels.
Students were often informed about colleges’ systems of student representation during induction, from college diaries or students’ handbooks, or by class tutors. In addition, some college websites stressed the importance of the students’ association and the role of course representatives and provided information about them. One college had found that providing lunch for students’ association meetings had helped to improve attendance. Some students felt that the induction period was too early for the college to try to involve students in college representation systems as students had too many other things to think about at that stage. Others felt that their college should do more to raise awareness - "the college needs to raise the profile of class representatives."
Recent work by SPARQS had helped to raise awareness of representation issues, and had helped students to engage more effectively and conduct their affairs in a more business-like way. SPARQS had provided learners with a better understanding of their role in the college and how they could contribute as student representatives. Those students who had participated in SPARQS training had thought it helpful. SPARQS had written a helpful handbook for course representatives, and other training materials were made available on its website7. In addition, NUS Scotland and SPARQS jointly provided training for student board members at a residential event. Colleges generally supported SPARQS in making arrangements to train students to play their part in college quality improvement systems. However, many students had no knowledge of SPARQS and take-up of its training by student representatives was erratic, sometimes due to poor communication within the college. Staff who had attended SPARQS training on working with the course representatives had also found it beneficial.
The National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) provided support materials for student representation in Northern Ireland.
| Student support in Northern Ireland |
| The NUS-USI in Northern Ireland had produced a pack8 for student representatives. The pack set out to highlight the distinction between student representation and student feedback and made clear the avenues which should be explored by student representatives. The pack explained the nature of the committee structure prevalent in colleges and the role that student representatives can play. There was detailed information on how to make the best of student representative structures. The pack was split into sections that dealt explicitly with student representation including the course representation system, the role of a course representative and quality assurance. The pack also contained pro-forma documentation on questionnaires, elections and publicity. |
Most colleges supported their students’ associations to enable them to communicate with their student body effectively, and a few colleges had set up a student section on their intranet to provide a resource for use by the students’ association. However, ineffective communication with students, particularly with part-time students, reduced the effectiveness of student representation in more than a few colleges. Many students, particularly part-time and outreach students, were not aware of the range of channels open to them for communicating their views.
Colleges provided varying degrees of financial and other support for their students’ association. A small number of colleges had a full-time sabbatical post for the president of the students’ association. Others provided a part-time salary for the president to allow him or her to spend more time on this work while continuing to study. These full-time or part-time posts raised the status of the president of the students’ association and released time to make the association more effective in terms of communication with students and representation on college committees. Most colleges provided some form of additional support in the form of financial assistance, office space, support with administration or by nominating a link person to act in a liaison role. Where a member of staff acted in a link role, or as a student advocate, they were able to help maintain continuity in the operation of the students’ association from year to year, initiate elections and provide advice on contacts, college procedures and financial management. However, it was rare for colleges to provide significant training for students to enable them to carry out their duties as representatives.
A strength of many course representation systems was the link between course representatives and the students’ association. Where there were good links between course representatives and the students’ association executive team, and the students’ association executive team was effective, there was likely to be better central support for course representatives, a more coherent approach by the association to college-wide issues and stronger links with staff.
HMIE introduced its revised review model and framework in January 2005. Among a number of other changes to the review model were improvements to the method and extent of engagement with learners. Following the completion of the previous four-year cycle of reviews in 2004, HMIE worked with SFEFC to re-examine how students should be involved in college reviews. Valuable contributions from SPARQS, NUS Scotland and a small group of colleges informed this reflection on the most effective way to capture learners’ views. As a result, HMIE revised arrangements for interactions between reviewers and learners. The schedule for the briefing visit to a college in advance of a review was revised to include a meeting between the managing inspector and the students’ association to inform students about the process prior to the review. HMIE also revised the student briefing leaflet that it made available to colleges. During the first phase of the review, the review model required subject reviewers to meet a group of course representatives and a group of students who were not course representatives. Subject reviewers also had discussions with several class groups after they had observed lessons. The review model required most college reviewers to meet different groups of learners to discuss issues such as guidance and support, resources, quality improvement and the work of the board of management. These arrangements helped to provide reviewers with a better insight into students’ views and to raise the profile of the student voice during reviews significantly.