DOM SMITHIES: Welfare provision is too important to change without student consultation

//www.yorkvision.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Derwent_College_D_Block_-_geograph.org_.uk_-_15561821.jpg

This opinion piece was written in response to a Vision News Story.

I was approached by Vision to write something on what I thought about Derwent’s new tutor system, but, given how I know very little about it, I’m having to write something a little different…

It’s worth prefacing this piece by saying two things:

One, that I love the colleges and the collegiate system. I’m one of those keenos who choose this University because it was collegiate. I was on the exec of my College’s CSA for two years and Alcuin Merch is a large part of my wardrobe. The STYC system and student-led timetable of events means York puts on one of the best, safest and most welcoming freshers Week – and that’s one of the things the colleges do exceptionally.

Two, that the fundamental purpose of the Student Union and the College committees is to protect the rights and interests of students – and holding the University to account is a big part of that. We hold the Uni to account not because we want to point out failings but because we want to challenge them to do right by students so they get the best experience possible. And Colleges are not exempt from that accountability.

Change in the University is usually a good thing. It means growth, development and improvement usually in response to identifying an area that needs to change.

But when it comes to welfare provision – an issue that is sensitive and emotive – such a change should be driven by the needs of students, not staff. It should involve relevant stakeholders and representatives, be carefully reviewed and effectively communicated.

However, what has in fact occurred, with all the changes to the Derwent tutor system, has, in my view, been a sustained and gross mockery of student representation. I am appalled, I am outraged and I’m really quite disappointed.

I cannot comment on the new tutor structure because not only have I not been consulted but I’ve been lied to about a change even occurring. For the colleges to act as if they’re an entity immune from scrutiny and accountability is an issue that the University needs to address. It’s an injustice to students and it’s an injustice to the University who, credit to them, have always been keen to hear the opinions of students and be willing to respond to feedback.

From my perspective, this saga starts in October, when I raised the question around the role of tutors in a meeting with tutors and their responsibilities were clarified and I was reassured that all was well with the current systems. In a meeting last term, a representative of the GSA asked, quite directly, if anything was happening to the Derwent system (we’d heard some rumours) and was told that no changes were being made.

A couple of months ago Vision reported that they were changing things and asked me for a quote – I put in my quote that I was STILL yet to be consulted.

And a few weeks ago in a meeting of Student Life – after the changes have been signed off without any consultation or input from the SU or approval at any boards or committees – I challenged the lack of consultation.

I was told there had been a lengthy and wide consultation of Derwent students which I called out as a lie as only the current and previous JCRC Chair had been involved. And despite all of this, unchecked change is still going ahead.

I fully respect the degree of autonomy that the colleges have in doing what they think is best for their student communities, but their autonomy isn’t unlimited. So, here’s why I think what’s occurred in Derwent is outrageous and why I have my concerns:

The decision-making process has lacked any form of consultation with relevant stakeholders including the JCRC. Representatives have even been lied to and the decision faced no scrutiny at any boards or committees.Changes are being made without any review having taken place. I acknowledge this is a pilot but changes to staffing tend to occur after lengthy reviews that identify where the failings are. These changes are being done blindly and following ABSOLUTELY ZERO CONSULTATION!

Throughout my time as a Sabb the single-most asked question I get is around provision of welfare and response to the mental health crisis in the Uni, in the SU, in the City and in the Colleges. Students are invested in the issue and they have every right to be.

The University’s’ response to the mental health crisis was seemingly positive; I have been involved in new staff recruitment for the University, engaged with Open Door’s review and invited to participate in a lot of committees and meetings.

The SU has had it at the forefront of its agenda for a fair few years and have increased our own Advice & Support staffing. The City conducted a Student Health Needs Assessment and ensured input from all stakeholders.

But the Colleges have been allowed to make an autocratic decision without any engagement.

That’s not only hurtful to me when I’ve tried to engage constructively and intelligently on ensuring there is a holistic response to the mental health crisis on this campus but it’s also an injustice to students who have every right to scrutinise the level and manner of provision.

Throughout my entire time in office I have challenged the University on one of its biggest failings: inconsistency. I called out the failing reporting systems and they’re now moving to a centralised and online form – WHICH IS BRILLIANT.

They allowed a forum to exist where they could be held to account, students views could be heard and responded swiftly to feedback to make things more accessible.

Accountability is a good thing, it makes things better for students. When I heard that students don’t understand what the colleges role in welfare is I passed on that they need to explain it better.

And then for a college to be allowed to change its system in isolation, to be inconsistent with the rest, making their structures all the more harder to understand for the student population is unacceptable.

If things are being made more inconsistent and more inaccessible then I take serious issue.

I have been a massive advocate for the collegiate system while in the SU and that’s not going to change. But if the Colleges are going to improve they need to be accountable.

Because without accountability you can’t acknowledge them when they do things right and do things well and you can’t keep them in check when things, like this, are done very very wrong.

You can read York Vision’s news article about the changes to Derwent’s College tutor system here.

One thought on “DOM SMITHIES: Welfare provision is too important to change without student consultation

Comments are closed.