SU 2034: Ideas on NUS Scrutiny.

In our own unions we all talk about the importance of democratic accountability. It is at the forefront of our collective consciousness, and the manifesto promises of many sabbs to improve how students can hold Officers to account. As Officers we generally trust that the work NUS Officers are doing is good, we tend to derive this from the glimpses of their work we catch from conferences, the work they put online, and NUS events. This is of course dependent on what NUS Officers choose to present, and if we happen to physically be at the events they are presenting it at. In other words, for an officer not elected to a position within the NUS democracy structures accountability can be a static process, if you are not at something it is hard to perform effective scrutiny.

The static nature of accountability extends to the democracy structures that are in place. NUS does some truly amazing work, as an Officer I am incredibly proud to be a member, and play an active role in NUS. If I want to hold an Officer to account I can of course email them, or pick up the phone, but again that is providing I know what they are doing. A NUS Officers workplan is often shaped by a mixture of; personal goals, policy passed at conference, work of zone committees, NEC policy and inherited work from previous Officers. On the one hand, it is much to the strength of NUS that there is a real democratic say in how the work of NUS is shaped, the agenda is truly set by Student Officers, and by extension students, in this regard. However, there are also issues with having the place of scrutiny as the place where work is shaped. Individuals in zone committees will no doubt perform excellent scrutiny, however they are also involved in the development of the work, which could be seen as a contradiction. Two, scrutiny comes from individuals elected to these democratic positions, however, the skills required to effectively scrutinise are not the same as those required to win an election, which may exclude some sabbs who would perform scrutiny functions really effectively. Finally, as we saw with NUS Conference, scrutiny is often dictated by political priority, meaning that the work of certain zones (UD this year) is not as discussed as much as it could be.

If there are structural difficulties in effective scrutiny there is also some more work to be done in providing sabbs with skills to scrutinise more effectively. The training we receive both from our Unions and nationally is largely focussed on delivering change and political objectives. Therefore, the way we hold NUS Officers to account is through approximating the way we would have done certain things differently, rather than objectively viewing decisions in terms of their delivery and how we could improve them. For example, the discussion around the Free Education Demo will be a discussion on a values match between people who do or do not agree with the demo, not scrutinising things like its cost, route, timing, value for money etc. Part of the reason is that no Officer joins NUS to approve minutes and scrutinise accounts. The second part, is that we aren't particularly encouraged to learn the skills associated with effective scrutiny; reading accounts, project management, and other such skills that allow the divorce of political direction from the effective running of a large organisation.

Therefore, scrutiny has to come from the bottom up, it is our responsibility as Officers to hold NUS to account. There are steps NUS could take to help us in this process. The various training events we attend could have a more practical element to them. When we are learning how to be a Sabbatical Officer it would be good to learn about how we add to the national movement, as well as work effectively in our own Unions, and to learn some 'hard skills' around scrutiny. This may be quite dry for an introduction to the student movement, it might be good to see more tutorials on things like reading accounts uploaded to NUS' online platform. Students' Unions are by their very nature internally focussed, when we hold trustee training we should build this in to a more city wide event, where sabbs from across the City from the no doubt variety of sized unions learn the skills on trusteeship as well as skills around running relatively large charities. We need to strengthen our alumni networks, former sabbs have a wealth of knowledge but are more divorced from the politcial decision making. Finally, it could be the time to reform the NEC and devolved its function to leave it as an interim politcial decision making body, and devolve its scrutiny function to a different committee entirely.

Finally, for effective scrutiny to take place it is necessary to move away from scrutiny as a static process. Scrutiny should not be about ensuring decisions fit within one political mantra (although political debate is incredibly important), but in providing effective mechanism to ensure that our collective decisions are open to all of our members. In reality, we don't talk to our own members often enough about the work NUS does. We await a backlash from hyperbolic headlines we respond to, or we rightly shout about our collective success. There is little in between, we rarely discuss the everyday stuff. How many of our members know that our General Election policies are inspired by the work of NUS, very few students will know NUS is launching a conversation on the role of students' unions in twenty years. For many NUS is a discount card, or a number they borrow off their mates for a Spotify discount. In our Student Councils and General Meetings we discuss our own work, the challenge for us should to be to discuss the work of NUS more broadly.

Let's add to the 2034 discussion and find out what our members want from NUS. With the knowledge of what our members want, we can scrutinise NUS better, and we might just be generally better for it. The 2034 discussions will hopefully include work on how we can alter structures to improve democratic participation, the challenge for students' union will be to equip ourselves and our members with the skills to work with NUS on their future, through the effective scrutiny of their function.

SU 2034: Future Proofing the Student Movement

This year marks twenty years since the introduction of the 1994 Education Act.  The student union movement is at a bit of a crossroads, if we are to survive the next twenty years it will be predicated on the work that we do now.  This means that it is an incredibly exciting time to be involved with the students’ union movement, and it is much to the credit of NUS that they are working on looking at the purpose and function of students’ unions in the future.

In looking forward to 2034 it is important to look at what the ’94 act is.  The ’94 act is primarily a piece of ideology enshrined in law.  Its original purpose was to introduce opt-in membership to students’ unions, John major who backed the bill described students’ unions as ‘one of the last bastions of the closed shop.’  Vigorous campaigning by students’ unions forced the government to water down these reforms, the two crucial things that became enshrined in the act are that students’ unions can only put money toward issues that ‘affect students as students’ and it enshrines in law that some form of students’ unions should exist within educational institutions.

It is therefore unsurprising that with another Conservative government there are a tranche of new threats to students’ unions from government.  The governments’ lobbying act which limits the amount of money charities can spend in the run up to an election can be considered the starting gun on limiting the scope to act on issues that ‘affect students as students.’  The biggest single threat from government would be the revival of individual student registration to ‘opt-in’ to be a member of a students’ union.  Student cannot opt out of society, nor can they opt out of the conditions a university imposes on them (other than by leaving.)  Individual registration would limit students’ unions ability to claim to be the authentic voice of students, and would inevitably lead to a decline in the popularity of students’ unions, and the resources put in to them.  Furthermore, the government continues to privatise elements of universities which excludes students’ unions. There is a rise in private institutions where laws on student representation don’t apply and last week it was announced that the quality assurance process for universities would be put out for public procurement.  The QAA who are currently responsible for quality assurance ensure students are at the heart of quality reviews, this could change in a new regime.  If students’ unions lose their voice through increased privatisation and through limiting the opportunity to take part in review the academic quality of their institutions, there is a real danger that the government could limit the function of students’ unions as a whole.

In light of this it is also worth considering the role universities play in the future of students’ unions.  Students’ unions at their best are integral in the long term planning and quality assurance of their parent institutions.  When treated as equals students’ unions can work incredibly effectively in improving students overall educational experience.  Instead of equality what is frequently happening is that institutions are purposely encroaching on the role of students’ unions, opening up ‘student experience departments,’ running student services better placed with unions and playing an ever greater role in managing supposedly independent democracy structures, such as course reps.  Even where students’ unions are functionally independent they are often prevented from having an equality of voice in decision making, many students’ unions are barred from sitting on committees that makes high level decisions, and in many cases are not made aware of the financial environment in which the university operates.  Students’ unions are dependant on universities for block grant, by the nature of this umbilical relationship there will always be a threat that one day the university sector could turn round and dramatically reduce funding, with an ever increasing consumerist agenda in education it may not be as unlikely as it would have once seemed.  If universities undertake some of the role of students’ unions, deny them an equality of voice and starve them of funding it is important that students’ unions assert their independence in other ways.

Students’ unions continue to survive by adapting to the environment they are in.  In an era where students’ unions are also registered charities financial stability is key.  Between 1997-2007 students’ unions commercial revenue declined by around 40%.  The increased commercialisation of students’ unions premises has been unpalatable for some, but there must be a balance between ensuring financial independence from parent institutions and maintaining a sense of identity in students’ union buildings.  As a movement the strength of students’ unions is in their relevance to students.  If students’ unions forget they are before anything else political representatives then they lose their function.  Students’ unions will save themselves by continuing to make the lives of students better.  It sad but it is a fact of modern higher education that existence is predicated on the ability to show value.

Whilst this may be bad news students’ unions have reasons to be optimistic.  In the UK students’ unions are in many respects the best mass collection of unionised individuals.  Whilst NUS is not a trade union in a classic sense its 7m membership is more than all other UK trade unions combined.  It is a collective voice that has no doubt made the lives of students better over a number of years.  In recent months  NUS forced the government to make a U-turn to cuts to Disabled Students’ Allowance.  NUS time and time again makes the government think again, it forces change to the higher education sector and is a powerful mechanism through which wider societal change is achieved.

It is encouraging NUS are looking forward to the next 20 years.  With continued hard work and a continued focus on what is the purpose of students’ unions the student movement will remain strong for some time yet.  In being aware of the threats of the future, the movement is best armed to ensure its continued existence.

Democracy in Schools

This week I spent some time talking to the Schools' Parliament. Schools across Liverpool elect representatives who meet to discuss issues from across the City, collectively they form the Schools' Parliament. There is a lower house for pupils from infants school, and an upper house for pupils from junior schools. The two houses are supposed to feed in to the Council's planning for the year, especially in areas relating to young people. On Wednesday I worked with some junior school pupils on the things they would like to see the Council do in the coming year.

The Schools Parliament had achieved some pretty impressive things in recent years, including successfully lobbying the Council for a young persons' bus pass. Furthermore, the issues the pupils came back with were better formed than I would have previously assumed. The most pressing concern for many of the pupils was the number of homeless people in the City, after a bit of prodding the pupils thought this was possibly down to lack of affordable rented housing in Liverpool; although one year 8 thought it was the deficit to blame, which seemed to be a very nuanced answer for a 12 year old. The other issues that pupils came back with were; youth unemployment, lack of things to do, poor transport and lack of mental health provision in school. As this activity continued it quickly became apparent that students' unions aren't alone in some of the issues we campaign for, and we could involve schools more. Surprisingly many of the pupils had an NUS card.

NUS in future years could well seek to extend its reach further in to schools. In years gone by it would have seen inconceivable that NUS would have worked with colleges so successfully, it would have seemed even more unlikely that NUS would begin work with student apprentices. Working with schools with present issues, school pupils lack much free time due to 9-5 scheduling, they lack independent governance structures and schools are generally underfunded in setting up schools councils, relying on already overstretched teachers to give up their free time. This is not to say students' unions could not help to alleviate some of these barriers.

Where students' unions could provide more support is in helping schools' councils develop a level of independence from their school. There is scope for Officers and Staff to work with pupils on developing skills they would need in order to run their own student council; public speaking skills, chairing meetings, writing an agenda etc. This would help develop pupils skills which will serve them later in life, as well as helping pupils develop an independence of thought that will allow them to serve as that 'critical friend' to their school. There are so many possibilities in helping to develop schools councils. Offering local pupils the chance to do work placements, offering free room space, running debates with students on schools councils, and generally being a place for advice and guidance could all help student councillors develop.

In supporting school pupils to run their own governance structures we amplify the voice of young people in the city in which we live. There are no doubt a number of challenges, and the function and purpose of schools councils are by no means always clear. With time and the right levels of support schools could be the next place that NUS can exert and influence, and represent on a national scale.