Students’ Union Advice Service Report 2008-09 Executive Summary for Academic Board January 2010 Contents: General Information Sections:
Key Recommendations Themes:
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Overview of the Year
4. Late Appeals Period 5. International Agents 6. Staff Absences
1. Introduction 1.1 The Advice Service Report aims to outline the issues raised by students using the Advice Service at the Students’ Union, University of the Arts London (SU) during academic year 2008-2009. Through analysis of our statistics, both quantitative and qualitative, this report recommends actions for improvements for both the University and Students’ Union to take forward. 1.2 The Advice Team are held to account through the Students’ Union’s management structures, and ultimately answer to the Student Executive Committee. This is a report on the issues we have dealt with this year, rather than on our own performance, which is why so many of the recommendations are directed towards the University. Our own evaluation processes occur outside of this report and feed into our strategic plan. 1.3 In last year’s report we identified the transparency and accountability of university procedures as our key area for improvement. We have found the University’s response to be extremely positive, and we have worked closely with the Governance and Legal Department to make sure information is shared fairly and correctly. Accordingly, we now have an appeals process which is significantly more open, so that students are aware of the details of their cases and feel more satisfied with the process. The principles of fairness and natural justice, that our report last year raised, are also reflected in the discussion of the University’s new Academic Misconduct guidelines. There is some work to be done to standardise the practice across the colleges which we will be taking forward through CAN this academic year.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 1 of 7
2. Methodology 2.1 The Advice Service Report is based on the statistics collated from September 2008 to August 2009, and has enabled us to identify general trends which have subsequently been analysed. It makes it possible to compare figures between colleges, over past years and by case matter type. As with last year’s report, graphs have been collated which illustrate the proportions of students affected by different issues in comparison to the head count at each college. The head count is based on figures provided by Registry. 2.2 Clarification of terms: ‘Enquiry’ refers to an enquiry from a student that may or may not have turned into a ‘Case’. ‘Case’ refers to an enquiry from a student that has progressed to a case in the Universities complaints, appeals or disciplinary structures 2.3 Bearing in mind the need to compare this year’s statistics with those of previous years, the limitations on last year’s statistics will still apply, namely: When comparing years it is important to note that the statistics from 2005/06 are not complete. The statistics do not reflect work done, resources used or time spent on individual cases. The statistics do not include outcomes, but merely the initial enquiry. It is difficult to categorise all enquiries; students may wish to appeal but a complaint may be more suitable. In these cases it is often a matter of opinion and we do not always know what the student decides to do in the end. There are also many cases recorded as advice which may be recorded as a number of other things. We do not know the total number of enquiries because some individuals may have made more than one enquiry. Nor do we know the true number of individuals because group complaints are recorded as one complaint.
3. Overview Graph 1
Graph 1 shows the total number of enquiries the Advice Service has received from 1 st September to 31st August of each year. Enquiries are by phone, in person, by fax, letter or email. It reveals a stabilisation of figures over the last three years. Stable figures indicate that students may be getting better levels of support from staff and may be receiving consistently clear information from university. The graph might also indicate that students are being consistently referred to the Advice Service’s Help Desk Assistants, who now receive improved training within the Students’ Union. A final possible cause could be that students are more consistently aware of the SU Advice Service; increased resource and thought has been put into publicising the service over the past three years.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 2 of 7
Graph 2 - Total Enquiries per College 2007/08 and 2008/09
Graph 2 shows a breakdown of the total enquiries per college and compares 08/09 to 07/08 figures. We can see a drop in enquiries from LCC, although as a percentage of the student body at LCC this drop is less significant than it appears in the graph. Although it is difficult to attribute a direct cause to the relatively minor fluctuations in the figures from LCC, CSM and LCF, it is possible that issues arising in this year's appeals may have contributed and will be considered in the Appeals section of this report. The small rise in enquiries from Camberwell and Wimbledon could also have been affected by the Students’ Union’s outreach work at these two colleges. Whilst the numbers are not conclusive, it is hoped that the continuation of the drop-ins will further increase student awareness at Camberwell and Wimbledon. It is important to note the drop in queries from Chelsea. This is something the Advice Service plans to look into next year. Graph 3
Graph 3 shows that the spread of queries from each college is roughly proportionate to the numbers of students studying at each college. However, as in previous years, CCW are underrepresented in this graph. This however, could be seen as an improvement for Chelsea in indicating that there are less complaints arising from there, which has been a problematic hot-spot in previous years. SU Action The Students’ Union intend to continue our outreach work at Camberwell and Wimbledon and will consider visiting Chelsea on a regular basis.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 3 of 7
Graph 4
Graph 4 confirms the concentration of the Advice Service’s efforts on appeals, followed by extenuating circumstances cases and complaints. The concentration of the Advice Teams’ work highlights the need for better information to be available to students in the appeals process. We will later look at what the Advice Service is doing to address the imbalance. It is difficult to comment on the ‘advice’ category because this is a miscellaneous category which includes occasions where students are referred to other services within and outside of UAL. Graph 5
Graph 5 demonstrates how enquiry rates have developed over the past five years. The most significant increase is that of appeals. Complaints have gone up again, though at a slower rate to that of the previous years. Encouragingly, the increase in Extenuating Circumstances queries indicates that students are becoming more aware of the process.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 4 of 7
4. Appeals: Late Appeals Period 4.1 General Overview Appeal enquiries make up the largest proportion of all enquiries. A total of 480 enquiries in 08/09 is a significant increase from last year’s 355. The sharp increase was unexpected and the reasons for this dramatic rise need to be addressed.
4.2 This graph illustrates the relationship between total student numbers and proportions of appeal enquiries from each of the colleges. It demonstrates that students of similar proportions are appealing from the three larger colleges. As shown 29% of all appeals enquiries came from LCC students which is a significant fall from last year where LCC students made up 42% of all appeal enquiries. The table below reveals that LCC has the highest number of material irregularity enquiries; although this was also higher last year. 4.3 As detailed in statistics from Registry, there was a large drop in appeals for the July hearings period, and a large rise in cases heard during the late appeals period due to end in December 2009. 4.4 Discussion at CAN in November revealed that there are a number of factors that may have contributed to the late appeals period. The exact causes need to be identified because they are currently unclear. It was suggested that students were simply handing forms in late, however this does not appear to be the predominant cause. Some have suggested that it may be due to marks being submitted late as a result of a long marking period. 4.5 The issue of the late appeals period is one that has arisen again and again over several consecutive Annual Reports, and is still very much a problem that needs to be addressed. Although the late appeals period impacts negatively on all students going through it, it is the students who are progressing or are here on visas that are hit the hardest. Recommendation As recommended in several annual Advice Service reports, we strongly feel that the University should investigate options for significantly reducing the amount of late appeals and increasing the chances of more appeals getting into the July period. Bring forward the September appeals period so there is enough time to make arrangements for retrievals and exam boards sitting before term starts again.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 5 of 7
5. Complaints: International Agents 5.1 General Overview
Graph 7 indicates that LCF and LCC have disproportionately higher enquiries regarding complaints than all other colleges. CSM is of a similar size but is significantly underrepresented whilst the familiar trend of CCW continues. 5.2 There were several complaint queries from international students this year about agents misinforming them about important aspects of the course in order to recruit these students from overseas. 5.3 For example, one student from India informed us that they were assured by both representatives in a meeting that the course he was going to apply for was postgraduate and would allow him to obtain a tier 1 post study work visa. The advertisement used in India for this course also clearly stated this fact. However, when the student attempted to apply for his work visa in January, he was informed that he was not eligible and that the course was a graduate grade 3 course, lower than the grade 5 one he had completed in India, and thought he was coming to complete at UAL. This had a drastic affect on the students’ finances, both in lost earnings and money spent on the course, and he suffered from psychical ill health as a result of stress from the situation. 5.4 Another student from Taiwan told us that she was informed that her MA course at LCC would actively help her find a work placement, however when this did not happen she struggled with no support and was not able to find one. 5.5 Several students from India also reported that the agents had told them that the courses at UAL were easy, that they would not have to put any work in and that they would automatically pass, as everyone does. Unfortunately, the students realised too late that this was not the case. Recommendation The sometimes false information that overseas agents are giving to students is detrimental to their academic life, as has been evidenced by a number of enquiries over the past few years. In addition to the impact on students, this situation is opening the university up to legal action. Agents must be adequately trained and kept up to date on any relevant changes that are occurring to courses or University policy. Overseas advertising needs to be checked vigorously as well to avoid any misinformation.
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 6 of 7
6. Staff Absences 6.1 Poor management of staff absences has been flagged in 3 consecutive Advice Reports. Staff absences, including planned ones, are not being effectively covered every time which is having a detrimental affect on students and courses across the University. 6.2 The relatively small number of students who have made complaint or appeal enquiries relating to staff absences is just a small percentage of the students affected by staff absences. We receive regular feedback from course representatives who make enquiries with us about what they should do if their Course Director is absent and their student experience has been affected. In addition to the direct information we have from students, initial findings from a research project on students who leave courses before they finish reveals that fluctuations in drop out rates appear to, in places, correlate with significant staff absences (although it should be noted that this research is not complete and correlations only indicate a potential interrelationship at this stage). 6.3 Complaints As in previous years, the Advice Service dealt with a series of enquiries from students about complaints, some of which progressed to official complaint status, relating to staff being absent and colleges not providing adequate cover. In these enquiries, staff are either ill, on parental leave, or out of the country for both work and pleasure purposes. In the instances we’ve dealt with the positions are not being filled which appears to be contributing to inconsistent tutorial advice, courses becoming disorganised, and in one case was found to be directly detrimental to a student passing their course. 6.4 Appeals Enquiries relating to appeals have also raised the issue of staff absences. Students have encountered huge problems trying to undertake their referral work whilst staff have been away. In more than one case this meant that the students could not get their work done and have resorted to appealing under material irregularity. Recommendation Staff absences should be dealt with in a standard way across all colleges; policy and practise should lead to staff absences being fully covered, particularly where absences are planned in advance, and should not lead to an adverse affect on the student experience or to individual students’ progression. Staff absences should form a key line of enquiry in the SICOM project.
Helen Gimber Students’ Union President president@su.arts.ac.uk
SUARTS REPORTS | SU Advice Service Report 2008-09: Executive Summary for Academic Board | January 2010
Page 7 of 7