2008/09 SUSU Top-Up Fees Student Consultation Report to Union Council – 02.02.09.
Vice President (Education and Representation) Joseph Leigh
Contents

Page 2 – Introduction

Page 3 – Methodology

Page 5 – Results

Page 8 – Conclusions – Proposed SUSU Stance and Relevant Actions
Page | 1

Introduction.
At the meeting of Union Council on Monday 17 th November 2008, Council passed an amended motion mandating the Vice President (Education and Representation) to consult the student body of the University of Southampton in order to determine the appropriate stance for SUSU to take on top-up fees and the impending 2009 top-up fees review. This amendment was to an original motion brought by members of Council seeking SUSU’s support for the “Campaign Against Fees” and the group’s protest set to take place on Highfield Campus on the 1 st December 2008. The original motion was based on a petition signed by 1000 students over a 4 week period. It was felt that a policy decision of such importance should only be made based on a full consultation with the student body, and that whilst 1000 signatures were clearly significant it was necessary to conduct a wider process in order to ensure fair and correct representation, and to provide all students with the opportunity to respond. It was also noted that at its meeting on 10 th March 2008 Union Council passed a motion stating that SUSU would not set its stance until the most “expedient moment”, and that those deciding this policy should be the students studying at the time of the review, and not those before it. The amended motion was accepted and clearly passed, with the proviso that the process be completed in a timely manner and that the Vice President (Education and Representation) was to report his findings to Union Council at its February meeting.
Following the passing of this motion, the Vice President (Education and Representation) worked with
SUSU Education Committee to develop a three stage consultation process, which was to begin over the Christmas vacation and continue until mid January. This process was outlined to Union Council at its December meeting (08.12.2008), at which members of Council were able to consider the proposed strategy and have input into it. With the suggestions of Council taken on board, the Vice
President (Education and Representation) finalised the consultation process, and in mid December
2008 began the first stage.
This report is of the findings of that process, the methodology used and the actions proposed by the
Vice President (Education and Representation) based upon its results, presenting the data acquired in both numerical and percentage formats. As some students recorded their personal details when completing the free text sections of the survey, the complete responses have not been provided in this report. Amended versions with these details omitted are available as Appendices upon request for Council’s reference. Should you wish to view these appendices please email Joseph Leigh at vped@susu.org. Please note that the responses contained within these Appendices are those of individuals, and do not represent those of SUSU, its staff or its officers.
Page | 2

Methodology.
The consultation process was design to be carried out in three parts; phase one was to raise student awareness of the issues regarding the review and to inform them of the key facts surrounding it, phase two was to provide opportunity for public debate on the issue, in order to further raise awareness and provide students with an opportunity to voice their views to their peers, and phase three was to conduct an electronic survey, the link to which was to be made available to every student registered to study at the University of Southampton. Below is a breakdown of these stages.
Phase 1 – Informing.
Due to the brief timescale available and the large number of students that this process needed to reach, it was decided that the most effective way to provide the student body with the key facts and issues surrounding the debate was by developing a web page containing the relevant information, and emailing a link to this page to every student via their academic school. This link was also made available to students on the susu.org forums.
The information contained on the web page was researched by the Vice President (Education and
Representation), who also personally contacted staff at the University of Southampton, the National
Union of Students (NUS), and the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), the
Government department who will have the responsibility of conducting the 2009 review. Official statements were acquired from these sources and published on the web page www.fees.susu.org
, as well as the background of the review and the associated debates, links to other relevant web sites, and information regarding the SUSU top-up fees consultation process.
The link to this web page went live on Friday 19 th December 2008, and was emailed out to all schools to forward to their school mailing lists. This web page remained live throughout the consultation process, and the link was included alongside that of the electronic survey to ensure that all students taking part in the consultation had access to the key facts before responding. At the time of writing this web page is still accessible at the above address should members of Council wish to view it.
As explained at the meeting of Union Council on the 8 th December 2008, it was felt necessary to provide this information to students at the start of the process in order to generate interest in the issue and provide students with the core facts surrounding it. As the subject of top-up fees had not received much public attention for several months preceding the motion to Council, it was felt that without this initial stage any consultation would be likely to result in a low response rate and/or misinformed responses. Concerns were expressed by members of Council that this stage could potentially bias students’ opinions towards a given political stance, and so to combat this the information provided was restricted to core facts and press statements of three major national stakeholders as mentioned above, delivering political opinion from all angles of the debate. The web page was not given any political angle, thus avoiding any bias or influence, and ensuring that phase one was aimed solely at informing and raising awareness.
Page | 3

Phase 2 – Debate.
Phase two of the consultation process took place on Friday 9 th January 2009 at 1pm, and was publicised in both the phase one email and information web page, as well as on Sussed and the susu.org forums. This was the second time that SUSU had attempted to carry out a public top-up fees debate; Vice President (Education and Representation) 2007/08 Claire Chappell had run such an event during her period of office, which unfortunately received a low turnout. The phase two event received a more successful level of attendance, with 22 students present at the debate.
Chaired by Union Council Chair James Miles, the debate was broken down into three sections; whether SUSU should support or oppose the current system of HE funding in England and Wales, whether SUSU should support or oppose the lifting of the cap on top up fees in England and Wales, and whether SUSU should take action before or during the 2009 review, and what that action should be.
Through this debate it became clear that there were a wealth of differing opinions on this issue; opinions as to how the problem of HE funding had come about and should be resolved, as to whether SUSU should take action on this issue, and what form such action should take. Whilst this debate was intended to act as a means of further engaging the student population and providing a platform for students to publicly air their views, it also served to provide a glimpse into the potential outcome of phase three and a small cross section of student opinion on this issue.
Phase 3 - The Survey:
The survey was developed and produced by the Vice President (Education and Representation) and the SUSU IMM team, and the electronic link to it was circulated via email to the University of
Southampton School Managers and Deputy Heads of School (Education) to be forwarded to the school mailing lists. Regrettably SUSU staff and officers do not have the necessary permissions to email these lists directly, and so it was necessary to take this more convoluted method of distribution. Unfortunately as a result of this some schools did not forward the email to their lists until late in the survey period, as well as some not doing so until after the closure of the survey on the 19 th January.
As these difficulties were highlighted to SUSU, the Vice President (Education and Representation) made the electronic link to the survey available on the susu.org forums, and contacted those schools that SUSU had been notified were yet to forward the link. SUSU would like to thanks those students who voluntarily assisted in promoting the survey, both in person and on social networking sites, and who no doubt assisted in achieving the high response rate.
In total 2002 surveys were completed between Tuesday 13 th January and Monday 19 th January. Of these 2002 surveys, 1828 responses were surveyed, with 174 spoiled responses having been received. This survey therefore represents just short of 10% of the total student population registered to study at the University of Southampton, and as such SUSU is confident that this survey represents an accurate cross section of the opinions of the student body.
Page | 4

Results.
The responses received during phase three of the consultation process are provided below in two sections. The first section provides a data summary of the unspoiled survey responses, and the second section provides an overview and summary of the unspoiled literal responses to questions 5 and 7.
Section 1. Data Summary.
Below is a summary of the data collected from the 1828 responses analysed, detailing the majority response (both percentage and numerical) first, followed by the response rates of the remaining options.
Question 1 – 65.3% (1190) of participants do not support the current HE tuition fees system in
England and Wales [22.6% do (412) and 12% don’t know (219)].
Question 2 – 78.4% (1429) of participants do not support the proposal to completely lift the cap on
HE tuition fees [12.6% do (230) and 8.5% don’t know (155)].
Question 3 – 89% (1623) of participants do not support the proposal to raise the cap on HE tuition fees to £6000 [6.4% do (117) and 4.3% don’t know (79)]
Question 4 – 80.9% (1474) of participants would like SUSU to take action before the 2009 review takes place [4.6% would not (83) and 14.5% don’t know (265)]
Question 5 – 60.3% (890) of participants answered question 4 “yes” and provided information as to what type of action they felt SUSU should take before the 2009 review.
Question 6 – 76.4% (1392) of participants would like SUSU to take action during the 2009 review
[3.6% would not (66) and 19.5% don’t know (356)]
Question 7 – 47.8% (670) of participants answered “yes” to question 6 and provided information as to what type of action they felt SUSU should take during the 2009 review.
Question 8 – 34.1% (621) of participants think SUSU should take the stance that top-up fees should remain as they are [2.1% think SUSU’s stance should be that the cap should be completely lifted
(38), 5.9% think that SUSU’s stance should be that the cap should be partially lifted (108), 30.7% think SUSU’s stances should be that top up fees should be abolished (559), 23.9% think that SUSU’s stance should be that Higher Education fees should be abolished (436), and 3.1% don’t know (57)]
Questions 9 and 10 were for the purpose of identifying what areas of SUSU’s campaign were most utilised by students, and did not have any bearing on the participant’s stance on top-up fees. They have therefore not been included in this report; however should Union Council members wish to see this data then they should email Joseph Leigh at vped@susu.org
.
Page | 5

Section 2. Overview and Summary of Literal Responses.
The literal responses provided by participants were highly diverse, and expressed a wide range of responses from actively campaigning to Government bodies, the University of Southampton and the national population as a whole to support a lifting of the cap (often specifying a maximum figure of approximately £4000) to carrying out action to disrupt activity in both Southampton and London. A small minority of responses were not made seriously; a small proportion used the survey as a soapbox to air their criticisms of SUSU’s lack of action to date, whilst others suggested action such as a “Tactical nuclear strike”. There also appears to have been a slight element of confusion amongst some participants as to the autonomous nature of SUSU, with those respondents believing that
SUSU had direct involvement in the setting of fees either on a national or University scale. Despite these wide variations in responses, there have emerged some clear overall trends through the majority of answers, which are detailed below.
The most frequently suggested actions in responses to both questions 5 and 7 were; for SUSU to partake in and/or organise protests on both a national and local scale, to petition MPs, the
University and local Government detailing SUSU’s stance and calling for the student voice to be heard, for SUSU to work with the NUS and other Unions across the country in order to co-ordinate a nation-wide response, for SUSU to work with the University to further represent the student voice and to seek a transparent spending policy of all tuition fees, for SUSU to arrange a public debate involving MPs, for SUSU to conduct information campaigns providing students with the facts of the debate and any developments, and for SUSU to make its stance and actions known to local and national press and media. Whilst less frequent, there were also a number of responses requesting sit ins and other direct action, as well as requests that SUSU work with the University and Government to propose changes to the HE system such as reducing the number of available degrees in order to make public funding of HE viable, and making top-up fees variable depending on the ‘social importance of the degree’ and/or the number of contact hours involved.
Another argument forwarded by some participants was that the lifting of the cap on top-up fees could potentially be in breach of EU legislation. There does appear to be some basis for these arguments, as well as a potential infringement of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European
Convention of Human Rights, the Right to Education, as now enshrined in UK law by the Human
Rights Act 1998. Any barrier to such rights and movements set out in the respective legislation would only be permissible if they were proportionate and were carried out in order to achieve an accepted and recognised aim. Therefore any proposed alterations must be considered on these lines, and should it prove that the review implements a change of law that appears to be in breach of these pieces of legislation there may be a potential case for their repeal.
When responding to question 7, many participants suggested that during the review SUSU should continue to act as stated in their question 5 answers only to a greater extent, and this trend correlated to those responses directly specified in the question 7 results. Based upon these findings, this report would suggest that the types of action taken before and during the review should be of
Page | 6

the same nature, only intensifying during the review in line with the suggestions of the majority of respondents.
It is also worthy of note that the majority of participants responding to questions 5 and 7 reinforced the outcomes of question 8, and stated that SUSU should campaign for the cap on top-up fees not to be lifted any higher than its current amount, and if possible for the cap to be lowered or removed completely. Whilst only 60.3% and 47.8% of total participants completed these questions respectively, this finding serves to reinforce the data collected on the question 8 responses, and provides further insight into the desired overall stance of SUSU.
Page | 7

Conclusions- Proposed SUSU Stance and Relevant Actions.
Based upon the findings of the data and literal responses received from the participants of the phase three survey of SUSU’s top-up fees student consultation, this report proposes that SUSU takes the following action;
1Based upon the responses to questions 1,2,3 and 8, and supported by the literal responses in questions 5 and 7, SUSU should amend its policy to hold the following stance –
“Southampton University Students Union opposes any increase or lifting of the current cap on top-up fees in England and Wales”.
2Based upon the literal responses to question 5, and in order to reflect the overwhelming majority expressed in question 4, SUSU should take the following action before the
Government’s top-up fees review ;
(a) Publicly and actively promote the National Protest in London on 25 th February 2009 to students attending the University of Southampton through all of SUSU’s available channels. If financially and logistically viable transport to this event should be provided by SUSU.
(b) Raise a petition of students opposing the lifting of the cap on top-up fees to be submitted to Number 10 Downing Street, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal
Democrat Parties, local MPs whose constituencies contain a University of Southampton campus, the senior management of the University of Southampton, and local
Governments whose constituencies contain a University of Southampton campus.
(c) Develop and electronically distribute to students template letters/emails to MPs and encourage students to individually send them to their local MP, calling for their support in preventing the lifting of the cap on top-up fees.
(d) Liaise with the NUS, the UCU and other relevant Unions in order to co-ordinate any national response, and to ensure that information and developments on this issue are regularly conveyed to the University of Southampton student body.
(e) Work with the University of Southampton to request support for SUSU’s stance on top up fees, and to develop a transparent system of the expenditure of tuition fees.
(f) Contact DIUS and press for SUSU to be consulted as a stakeholder during the review process.
(g) Publicise the above actions through local and national media and press in order to highlight the issue to the wider society.
3Based upon the literal responses to question 7 and in order to reflect the overwhelming majority expressed in question 6, SUSU should take the following action during the
Government’s top-up fees review;
(a) Publicly and actively promote any national protests that are organised to students attending the University of Southampton through all of SUSU’s available channels. If financially and logistically viable transport to such events should be provided by SUSU.
(b) Organise a mass protest in Southampton at a suitable public venue, such as the Civic
Centre, and to publicise this protest through both local and national media and press.
Actively promote this event and encourage the student body to attend this protest.
Page | 8

(c) Develop and electronically distribute to students template letters/emails to MPs and encourage students to individually send them to their local MP, calling for their support in preventing the lifting of the cap on top-up fees.
(d) Organise a public debate, inviting MPs from the major political parties, as well as senior members of the University, to take part. Publicise this event through all of SUSU’s available channels, as well as through the local and national media and press.
(e) Submit a copy of the petition raised before the review, along with a statement of SUSU’s stance, to each member of the review panel. If unable to do so before the review, continue to press for SUSU to be directly consulted as a stakeholder during the review process.
(f) Continue to liaise with the NUS, UCU and other relevant Unions in order to co-ordinate any national response, and to ensure that information and developments on this issue are regularly conveyed to the University of Southampton student body.
(g) Continue to work with the University of Southampton to request support for SUSU’s stance on top up fees, and to develop a transparent system of the expenditure of tuition fees.
(h) Continue to publicise the above actions through local and national media and press in order to highlight the issue to the wider society.
These actions, as well as the above mentioned stance, shall be formulated into a motion brought to
Union Council by the Vice president (Education and Representation) at this meeting of Council
(02.02.09) as being truly representative of student opinion and reflecting the correct way forward for SUSU if it is to effectively function as a representative body of its students. This consultation process, and the high response rate that it received, has demonstrated that this issue s close to the hearts of many students attending the University of Southampton, and it is now up to SUSU to act for them.
Page | 9