NUS debacle - the Steering Committee response

Following on from my earlier post about the NUS National Executive trying to get out of the mess it's in, including the attempts by the NEC to pass the buck to the Steering Committee in the row about the recent NUS Conference not even discussing the matter, some of you may have seen this comment posted. With permission I reproduce it as a new post:

The Steering Committee at every stage ensured that there was time allotted to Emergency Motions on the Order Paper and on each revised Order Paper. This time allocation never was fewer than 20 minutes. Requirements under the Standing Orders were also observed for the prioritisation of business and the prioritisation of time allocated to main items. Delegates who sought advice on how to challenge the Order Paper for the purposes of moving the Conference onto discuss the Emergency Motions, received advice on how to do this. Those representatives who attended the Drafting Commission meeting for the Emergency Motions were also advised as to the process for how the Conference would deal with Emergency Motions and the process of how Order Paper challenges could raise Emergency Motions towards the top of the agenda, including being notified that there were priorities for debate as listed in Standing Orders.

Challenges were received to the Order Paper both on the Wednesday evening penultimate session and on the Thursday morning final session. One of these requested a ruling from the Chair of Conference on timing (for Elections and Emergency Motions) as the No-Platform Policy amendment had run on into time for Elections and the other was raised as a Point of Order requesting a Chair’s ruling on time allocation during the Coca-cola motion and amendments which the Chair of Conference again dealt with. In the latter case, the Chair asked the Conference if it wished to hear the case for the Point of Order. The case was put that (15 minutes of) time be removed from the Zone Debate on Society & Citizenship and allocated to the Emergency Motions time allocation. The Conference denied this request and the Chair of Conference ruled in favour of the Conference’s decision. This meant that the guillotine on the Society & Citizenship Zone fell at 13:42, leaving only 18 minutes of time allotted for the whole of Conference. Items remaining for discussion along with the Emergency Motions, included Estimates, the Accounts, Ratification of Liberation Conference Policy, the Policy Lapse, all of which are time prioritised above Emergency Motions in the Standing Orders.

The Steering Committee has met in a wash-up meeting, and has highlighted priorities which need to be addressed, both by the Steering Committee and other parties involved in the organisation of the Conference. The minutes of Steering Committee meetings are open to inspection by any Union and any student of the NUS for inspection at anytime including the allocation of time and discussion of the submitted Emergency Motions to the Conference in March 2006.

This statement should be read along with the full Steering Committee Report on Emergency Motions, which includes background information and details which explain some of the minutia. Other useful documents include CD15 The Order paper (Appendix A), CD19 The Steering Committee Report to the Conference (Appendix B) and CD22 The Minutes of the Conference (Appendix C).

Steering Committee, May 2006

AUT/NATFHE marking boycott - the NUS tries to extract itself

Whilst the marking boycott rumbles on and students get more and more worried about their results, the National Union of Students has finally sent out an email to all their members for whom they have email addresses (i.e. the ones who registered their NUS cards online), presented as "Lecturer’s pay dispute: what you need to know" although it's frankly very one-sided. But this is the first time the NUS have bothered to try and explain their position to students directly. No doubt they have been forced to because of the heavy student opposition to the boycott and some think one of the reasons is the poor level of direct communication. One has to wonder why NUS has taken so long in getting its act together, given the rising levels of opposition to the position the National Executive Committee has taken.

One of the issues that has given the NUS the greatest embarrassment is the failure of the national conference in March to even discuss the issue. Some have asserted that this wasn't the NEC's fault, but past NUS Conferences have shown that when the NEC is behind emergency motions time has been made for them. The failure to take a lead and seek a mandate from the conference has left the NUS exposed and I am not surprised there is talk on the educationet messageboard about unions potentially disaffiliating.

The latest NUS update details NUS's meeting with UCEA and also their lobbying of the Association of Graduate Recruiters to ease the problems for students graduating, but also contains the following statement:

STEERING COMMITTEE TO RESPOND TO THEIR FAILURE TO ENSURE A MOTION ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION WAS DEBATED AT NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Delegates at regional conferences have made it clear that they were frustrated that a motion on the industrial action was not debated at the national conference in March. This frustration has been shared by NEC members who had done everything they could to ensure that this was debated. An emergency motion was put forward, and Steve Wharton, President of AUT, traveled up to Blackpool to answer students' questions at Julian Nicholds, Vice President's invitation. Following the Steering Committee's failure to allocate time for this debate to take place, Gemma Tumelty, National Secretary, has written to them requesting a statement that explains the reasons for this. We will ensure that members are informed of the response of the Steering Committee.

The "done everything they could" rings hollow and I wonder just who will be editing and passing on the response. And why on earth is the National Secretary Gemma Tumelty (and National President elect) having to write to the Steering Committee when she's the NEC member on it? Doesn't she know the answer?

I hope that the NUS NEC does not try to pass the buck onto the Steering Committee for the failure of the conference to discuss the motion. If the NEC were so confident that their position was actually supported by students' unions, they would have submitted an emergency motion themselves and ensured that the time to debate it was found.

These attempts by the NUS to reconnect with students and get back in touch are piecemeal at the moment. They need to do a lot more to reassure students and students' unions across the country that they are listening to concerns. Otherwise I would not be surprised if unions start disaffiliating.

Why are students so strongly against the AUT/NATFHE marking boycott?

A post on NewerLabour about "Why have students turned on the AUT?" links to here and I composed a reply. However as it's very long, I thought it best to post it here.

after the solidarity the AUT/NATFHE showed with us over fees (they could have benefited from the contra), the worst thing for us to do would be to stab them in the back

I think there are several reasons, some obvious, some less so, for this. And in several ways it just reflects the very real wider problems for students and their representative bodies as a whole.

First off, the most recent public battle on fees was a couple of years ago. The student life span is such that many of those who campaigned against fees have either now graduated or are sitting their finals. In turn a lot of first and second years know very little of who backed the anti fees campaign at the time. The more recent campaign has not yet caught the mainstream media's attention so most students are probably completely unaware of it and so do not think they have anything to reciprocate solidarity for.

Secondly, there is a large level of non-participation in students' union and student campaigns - I do not think I'm exactly breaking any great secret. For every student we may personally know of who did something, whether sign a petition or come on a demonstration, in the anti-fees campaign there are at least two (and usually more) who did not. Whatever the reasons we again have a large volume of students for whom the AUT/NATFHE position on fees goes over their head in all this.

Thirdly on a more general point, the concept of "solidarity" is one that increasingly few students understand or agree with these days. Most would rather reason the point for themselves, not give blank cheque support.

Fourthly, the AUT/NATFHE have not done very well in actively seeking student support. There are many reports of local students' unions being told by their AUT branches (I'm not aware of any NATFHE cases) that because "the NUS" is supporting the action (although the recent BBC coverage suggests to me that the NUS leadership are trying to play down any firm position one way or the other, probably in preparation for any formal change in position or as a tactical move to see off the threats of disaffiliations) the local SU cannot oppose it. From what I've seen neither the lecturers' unions themselves nor NUS have made much of an effort to promote support for the boycott amongst students. Even the NUS response to the opinion poll revealed this - they would rather the poll questions had included certain "facts" which they think would have delivered a majority for action.

We also have the way that students' unions are increasingly divided - one tally of announced positions today has found 38 against, 35 supporting, 8 neutral, 4 unaffected (due to the universities not being in the national pay framework) and 36 whose position couldn't be determined from their website (if they have one) or who haven't signed any letters of support/opposition. Tellingly in the pre 92 sector the declarations have a clear majority of opposition, whilst in the post 92 sector a majority support, suggesting that the NATFHE experience (where the setting of exams is still going on) is not provoking such an outcry compared to the AUT experience. With more and more students' unions taking a public position, the supposed national voice of the NUS is bypassed. We also have the petitions that show rather more students signing against the action than in favour (3372 on Petition against the AUT boycott and 2827 on Give Us Our Marks compared to 99 on SUPPORT OUR LECTURERS: DON’T LET THE BOSSES DIVIDE US!). I am not aware of any other petition in favour of the action. I think it's telling that most on educationet who argue that the boycott has strong student support are forced to challenge the opinion poll methodology and issues with the petitions, rather than pointing to alternative polls and petitions.

(There is also the issue of the way the NUS leadership decided to support the action, with the National Conference not even discussing it. Whilst very few students on the ground would have felt in any way bound by a conference vote, it has given weight to those opposing the boycott who attack the NUS position as out of touch, indirectly leading to some of the polls and surveys. It also may in the long run lead to the NUS breaking up. But normally the NUS is taken to be speaking for the students. However, on this one more and more has come out that suggests otherwise.)

I do not want to belabour this point to much as it is a bit on a tangent from actually student opinion. But I'll repeat my words from a post of mine on ednet:

"It's a two way process - a representative democracy only works when the representatives recognise that they cannot get too out of line with the wishes of those they represent. The represented invariably tolerate much distraction or expert consideration and so forth, but when it comes to huge issues they expect their opinions to be taken into account. Leadership requires two things - those who are willing & able to lead and those who are willing & able to be led. Leadership that goes it alone can work but requires strong levels of trust and respect to be given the benefit of the doubt. When that trust is lacking such leaderships crash."

however, students graduating now have thought in the short term, and turned against the strike.

Even if every finalist was against the action, they only account for at most 25% of the student body (and probably less once I get my figures sorted). Where does the rest of the 77% come from?

How selfish. we are endangering the prospects of future students.

Again, this is a point that has not really been sold very well at all. Whether it would have swung minds is hard to say - there are many other factors involved. Also most students (about 68% according to the same opinion poll) support the pay claims - just not this method of seeking them. The case that the one is essential for the other is not shared by many.

In summary, have students "turned" on the AUT? I am not sure they were all "with" the AUT to start with. Most of the students' unions who have come out against the boycott have been responding to student opinion and the pressing situation (which, if anything, is increasing as students reach the times when exams should have been set and marked - maybe the poll underestimated student opinion, being taken about a month ago) but I question whether most students in any way actually feel they owe the AUT much.

77% of students oppose the marking boycott

Following on from my earlier posts about the AUT/NATFHE marking boycott and the NUS leadership supporting the action without consulting their members, not to mention the Petition against the AUT assessment boycott, the issue has hit the headlines today. A poll commissioned jointly by London Student and the Times Higher Education Supplement has found that 77% of students oppose the boycott.

What's interesting has been the reaction of the National Union of Students' leadership:

NUS president Kat Fletcher said: "Clearly there are strong opinions circulating on both sides of the debate across the two million members that we have in higher education.

"We know that some students are unhappy with the lecturers' decision to boycott assessment and we also have clear evidence of support for the teaching unions and the actions they have been forced to take."

Ms Fletcher said the survey might have elicited a different response if it had set out all the facts.

Those who have seen Yes Prime Minister will recall the classic scene when Humphrey explains to Bernard just how to rig a survey. Presumably Kat Fletcher would have liked such a survey to be conducted instead of an opinion poll.

(Some may wish to claim the poll was rigged. However it was commissioned by London Student whose editorial line has been one of support for the boycott. The actual questions asked were "Do you support the lecturers' demands for higher pay disregarding their industrial action?" and "Do you support the lecturers boycotting the setting and marking of exams and coursework as part of their campaign for higher pay?" Furthermore the polling organisation has been identified and is one with a reputation, not a dodgey "private poll" of the kind in the Yes Prime Minister example.)

I should also note the rest of Kat's comments:

However, like all students I am concerned about the impact of the industrial action especially with the exam season under way.

I am particularly concerned that some students aren't even able to take their exams, because of the AUT policy not to set them," she said.

"We are really pleased that both sides will be getting back round the table, something which should have happened much earlier than this."

But from her comments overall it seems doubtful that the NUS leadership will respond to this clear expression of student opinion. One must seriously question whether the NUS mission values statement is being adhered to when it states:

NUS will constantly improve the lives and experiences of students in the UK: by ensuring their voice is heard and effectively represented; by developing democratic and strong students’ unions; and by providing collective benefits and access to information for all students.

Now the NUS leadership may want to argue for the trustee model of representation rather than the delegate model of representation. But traditionally NUS has gone with the delegate model of representation and it's rather suspicious to change stance just when the existing model happens to deliver a different result from the one wanted.

As well as my earlier post about Adam Sloan's experience of the boycott, here are two more individual accounts. Firstly The Independent Online Edition has Portia Hart: Why I would fight the AUT to get my degree whilst BBC News has Jacqueline Berry's account of her waiting game. Here at Queen Mary we've been lucky that the deadline for submitting exam papers fell before the boycott started, but many students are still concerned that they will not be able to graduate and take up graduate jobs and postgraduate places. At other universities students don't even know if they'll be able to sit their exams.

Let's hope this poll helps bring the action to a conclusion very soon.

The university marking boycott

Here at Queen Mary, University of London exams don't start for another week and as a postgraduate researcher I'm not directly hit by the assessment boycott by the Association of University Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. However from next week I will be working as an exam attendant - if there are any exams!

The two unions have called for an ongoing boycott of academic assessment as part of their campaign on pay, but it's now reaching the exam period and really starting to directly affect students. There's also a difference in methods between the two, as the Education Guardian explains:

The AUT has told members not to mark assessments or set exams, while Natfhe is encouraging members to set exams, but refrain from doing any marking until their demands for a pay increase are met.

The boycott has seen a clear division amongst students' unions:

The National Union of Students says it will continue to support the AUT and the lecturers' union Natfhe in their push for a 23% pay increase. But individual unions are increasingly calling for an end to the dispute, which involves a marking boycott.
...
But while more than 32 student unions have signed a letter to the AUT's general secretary, Sally Hunt, backing the strike action, the website www.aut-boycott.co.uk has secured more than 300 signatures from students who are demanding an end of the marking ban.

The website says: "This action is extremely unfair to students as it may be highly disruptive and detrimental to students' educations. This website provides a petition where those opposed to this action can add the weight of their voice to the calls for this action to come to an end."

But the president of the University of Warwick's student union, Kat Stark, who sent the letter to Ms Hunt, was highly critical of student leaders who were not backing the lecturers.

Curiously the article fails to note that Kat Stark is also the NUS National Women's Officer-elect. Also, as noted before both here and elsewhere, the recent NUS Conference did not discuss the issue at all.

Something else that doesn't appear to be widely reported, though noted in an NUS press release today, is:

Last week, NUS sent a formal letter to AUT condemning their decision not to set exams and calling on them to urgently reconsider this tactic. This is the culmination of a series of meetings and conversations where NUS has voiced serious reservations about this decision.

The Petition against the AUT assessment boycott keeps on growing and it can be signed here.

Oh and Education Watch has noticed the following:

Keele University has privately admitted that scores of students could graduate this summer with degree classifications that they do not deserve under plans to beat the assessment boycott, writes Phil Baty. In a set of contingency plans designed to counter the assessment boycott by the Association of University Teachers, Keele's senate last week agreed to allow final-year students to graduate as long as they had completed about two thirds of their final year.

The senate will invoke an obscure part of the constitution that allows students to graduate under exceptional circumstances if they have obtained at least 75 of the 120 final-year credits they would normally be expected to achieve. This is the equivalent of obtaining a degree despite dropping up to three final-year exam papers.

Does anywhere else have this provision?

Just what are the priorities of the National Union of Students?

Due to illness I wasn't able to be in Blackpool last week to help man a stall at the National Union of Students' annual conference. Thanks to Jo I've seen a number of blogs about the event. One in particular caught my eye:

James Dixon, Deputy President of De Montfort University Students' Union writes about his severe dissatisfaction with the priorities of the conference:

NUS Annual Conference failed to discuss the single biggest educational issue of the day.

Emergency Motions regarding the industrial action being currently taken by the AUT and NATFHE were not allowed to be discussed.

Despite having no policy on the matter and many Students' Unions calling for NUS President Kat Fletcher to change her stance on the matter, no time was found for the debate.

The issue of industrial action came top of the delegates Emergency Motions Priority Ballot, ahead of other big contemporary issues such as suspended University of Leeds lecturer Frank Ellis.
...
Conference, however, spent hours discussing whether or not to boycott Coca-Cola and if Hizb-ut Tahrir, an Islamic Group that the government wants to make a proscribed organisation, should be welcome within NUS.

I ask you to consider whether the priorities of NUS match that of Students' Unions or students on UK campuses?

There is a clear division of opinion on this matter amongst students' unions but the NUS has not actually debated its position on the matter. Instead those speaking to the media and sending out briefings have adopted the rather bizarre position of telling any students concerned about the strike to complain to their universities! But it isn't the universities who are striking!

And why on earth is the NUS even considering patronising students and telling them what they can and can't drink in union bars? Do the advocates of a boycott seriously believe that institutional boycotts work? The Nestle boycott has just resulted in students being frustrated that they can't buy Nestle in campus shops without a proper explanation being given as to why. All it does is encourage them to go elsewhere to buy not just Nestle but everything else, impacting on the campus shop profits but making little impact on Nestle.

If a campaign to boycott of Coca Cola is to be effective (and I don't know if it should - I've not seen anyone make a strong case for this), it should aim to get individuals to boycott Coca Cola everywhere. Rather than just taking away my opportunity to have a Coca Cola in the students' union bar without telling me why (and I seriously doubt the cash strapped NUS would ever pay for people to be in every SU bar across the country to explain to customers at the point of no sale why Coca Cola has been withdrawn), the boycott campaign should aim to get me to boycott Coca Cola everywhere, whether in the SU bar, in pubs, in restaurants, in supermarkets, at vending machines and so forth. That is the way to impact on Coca Cola's profits. The approach of getting NUS and its purchasing consortium NUSSL to boycott Coca Cola is just going to impact on students' union bar income, at a time when many unions are deeply strapped for finances.