Cereal Doesn't Cause Inequality.

Yesterday a group of anti-gentrification protesters vandalised Cereal Killer cafe in Shoreditch.  Presumably because if you set up a small business in a trendy area you're furthering the worst elements of capitalism, or something like that.

Personally, I wouldn't pay £5 for a bowl of cereal.  Then again, there's lots of things I wouldn't pay £5 for, I resent paying £8.20 for prescription medicine, but I don't think that's a symptom of a bourgeois conspiracy.  There's one thing for certain, the people who run Cereal Killers cafe aren't responsible for capitalism, they aren't even responsible for the mechanisms that fuel capitalism (bankers, stock brokers etc,) they are just two people who realised they could make money by selling cereal to people who are willing to pay for it.  That's all, two people who run a small business, for me these are working class people who run a business in the community, today pointing out the added tourist benefits they have brought to the area.

Attacking something because it is expensive makes no sense.  Cereal Killer Cafe can't control or change house prices in Shoreditch, they can't transform the economy, they can't really even affect how much people are willing to pay for food in their cafe (to an extent), or else they could charge an unlimited amount of money.  The only think they can do is charge an amount of money people are willing to pay for a service,

There is just something so tiring about being lectured on the class struggle.  The people who vandalised Cereal Killer cafe are not part of a struggle I want to be involved in.  It's patronising and takes away from the real causes of inequalities.  Mismanaged housing policies, lack of support and available finance for small businesses (how ironic,) and an incredibly unbalanced economy across the country, are much bigger factors that are forcing people out of area like Shoreditch (and London for that matter,) not a bloody cafe that sells cereal.


So, in reality lets look at what the protest has achieved. The protest will do nothing to halt the rise of venues like Cereal Killer Cafe.  It caused them no loss of earnings as they were able to open first thing this morning.  If anything, all the protest has done is turn people who were previously apathetic to Cereal Killer cafe on their side, and best of all, provided free advertising for the cafe in media outlets up and down the country.  For Cereal Killer Cafe it will almost certainly be a really good day for business.

The class struggle is not about stunts that harm small businesses, posturing about the ills of capitalism, and feigning an interest in the lives of people you have no experience of.  For me, the class struggle will always be about working toward a society that is more equal, where your life chances are no different if your parents are bankers, stock brokers, factory workers, or cereal cafe owners.  Gentrification and creeping capitalism won't be overthrown by attacking the small business owners who want to make a better life for themselves.

The Teaching Excellence Framework must Challenge the Status Quo.

The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF)is a government initiative designed to “ensure all students receive an excellent teaching experience.”[1]  The crucial detail missing is how this will be achieved, with little detail coming from the government.  The only  detail being touted as a definite is that the TEF will be based on “outcome-focused criteria, and metrics.”[2]  Invariably this has led to speculation about what those metrics will be, with links to NSS, PTES, PRES, class sizes, grade progression, all possibilities.

So, there is little known about the TEF.  There is one likely outcome, that no matter what the metric is, or what the comparators look like on teaching standards, the league tables will invariably show “elite” universities as having the best teaching.  The people drawing up these proposals come from elite universities, they are unlikely to devise a system that does not enhance their reputation.

This is not to say that the Russell Group do not provide excellent teaching, as in places they do, but the government are unlikely develop a framework that does not allow them to continue to promote Russell Group universities as being excellent at teaching, as well as research.

A large portion of UK universities finance is dependent on their international reputation for excellence.  It is no secret that universities are increasingly reliant on the tuition fees from international students, and reliant on international research collaborations to support their research.  The government would be unlikely to develop a system that would potentially harm the international reputation of elite universities, given the benefits to the UK of taking part in globalised education.

Excellent teaching is frequently overlooked by universities, and there are arguably two main drivers behind this.  The first being that teaching is often viewed as a supplementary activity to research, and in some ways less important.  The second being that universities, and funding bodies, invariably reward excellent research, much more than they award excellent teaching.  This obviously isn’t the case across all universities, but these are two fundamental issues that need to be grappled with, in order to provide an excellent teaching experience for students.

If the TEF is a means of boosting the reputation of research intensive institutions then it misses an opportunity to improve teaching across the board.  The TEF could signal a change in the emphasis placed on teaching by universities, and could start to redress the balance between teaching and research.  If it is simply a means of enhancing the reputation of already well established universities, then the exercise will be a missed opportunity.  If the framework develops means of improving teaching across universities, raising the standards of all teaching, encouraging teaching collaborations, then it could do some good.

It is likely that there will invariably be a link between the Research Excellence Framework, and the TEF.  This will likely come in the form of rewarding the use of research led teaching, given that the older and more well financed universities already hugely invest in research, there teaching will inevitably be well scored as well.

This then of course raises the question of what is the government’s intention for the TEF.  The answer is again we don’t know yet.  There is a green paper going to Parliament soon, and a Higher Education bill due in the coming year.  Engagement with the TEF is necessary to ensure that teaching reforms in higher education are done to genuinely improve teaching, not to superficially improve the image of already successful universities.

---

[1] https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-everything-you-need-to-know

[2] https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-how-might-it-be-built

"No matter how entertaining, how fulfilling, you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services or with their homes"

Andy Burnham would disagree but Jeremy Corbyn gives the impression of being the MP most outside of the ‘Westminster bubble.’  He is the candidate who seems least like a politician, and this has chimed with a lot of young people, and he deserves some praise for getting a large number of young people engaged in politics.  The issue is that with the release of his manifesto for young people he confirms a deeper truth, that it is much easier to play politics of perennial opposition, than it is to make the compromises to needed to win a general election.   Young people who are facing high levels of unemployment and even worse underemployment, cuts to maintenance grants, cuts to youth service, and a government with a rhetoric that devalues them at every turn deserve more than a list of demands that are uncosted, and unachievable.

It is difficult to disagree with what Corbyn sets out, but that is the whole point.  When you face little prospect of being Prime Minister, and when you offer no strategy of how your ideas will be implemented, or the cost of doing so, you can promise anything.  Here are just two examples.

The very first pledge of the manifesto is “Labour should introduce statutory living wage for all workers, including apprentices, and abolish age related tiers for minimum wage.”  As explained later in the manifesto this would mean moving from a current apprentice wage of £2.73 p/h, to £10 p/h for apprentices.  Apprentices are chronically underpaid for what they do, and it is through the fantastic work of the National Society of Apprentices that they will soon be getting a pay rise that qualifies them for statutory sick pay.  There are currently around 440,000 apprentices in the UK at the moment, and there is little explanation how such a pay rise would be funded.  In addition to this, why would a business of any description ever spend resource on training an apprentice, giving them the skills for later employment, when they could just hire an already qualified worker on the same wage? Low wages for apprentices is a scandal and one that needs to be addressed, it will not be addressed by promising impossible wage hikes, and through ensuring businesses will never hire apprentices in the first place.

Another pledge promises to “end the failed Academies and Free Schools project, and promote comprehensive education” again, it is difficult to disagree that there are problems with this project, and in its current form is a radical departure from the vision originally laid out.  We need to stop pretending that comprehensives were perfect before Academies came into existence.  Under Blair and Adonis Academies were a mechanism to improve failing schools, and that was there original purpose, and there is no doubt some Academies have achieved that.  Under this pledge, presumably successful Academies would be returned back to local authority control, where they had previously not been doing very well.  Children in education care much more about receiving a good quality education, rather than who runs it.  It is plainly ridiculous to interfere with the running of good schools for political gain.

In fairness, there are some points in the manifesto that are credible, but the vast majority of these points are simply opposing what are obviously terrible Tory policies.  Of course a Labour government should oppose cutting housing allowances to those under 21, of course a Labour government should oppose the removal of the post-study work visa for international students and of course a Labour government should reintroduce disabled students’ allowance.

There is a general sense of making easy promises without tackling the deep lying problems that affect so many young people, and that is what is so disappointing.  Introducing votes at 16, without addressing the wider issues of why young people in general don’t vote. Capping rents in the private sector, without committing to a way of doing it, or how to combat the concerns of subdividing apartments, forced sales of homes, or discrimination on characteristics as raised by Shelter[1].  Restoration of EMA is of course a wonderful idea, but EMA was in no way perfect. I want to see a Labour government that looks at the reasons people aren’t getting to college in the first place, and looks at the reasons why those who received EMA still were short of money at the end of the week, and some of those who didn’t get it were even worse off.

A manifesto for young people should go beyond the easy promises, the purely oppositional stance, and a set of unachievable dreams.  Young people deserve more than that.

---

[1] http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2014/02/are-rent-caps-the-answer/

The Road to Wigan Pier Revisited

I usually use my blog to discuss democracy, student politics, being northern and inequality, in this post I am going to discuss all of these things.

In the Road to Wigan Pier Revisited Stephen Armstrong retraces George Orwell's trip across the North West. As he visits Sheffield, Manchester, Wigan and Liverpool, Armstrong finds a landscape that would have not been too unfamiliar to Orwell. He finds people who are living in abject poverty and communities that are fractious and often in conflict with themselves. The book is bleak but brilliant, there is never any judgement from Armstrong, he finds solace in stoic individuals, and takes away some lessons for all of us.

For Armstrong the class struggle is not an intellectual play thing, he feels it acutely with every person he meets. Some of the things that are discussed are worth remembering, in the UK 3.5m children live in poverty, 1.6m of those in severe poverty. Despite being a relatively wealthy country children in the UK have a disproportionately small chance of escaping poverty. Importantly,  Armstrong suggests that the poor make some people very rich, including those who take advantage of them, including Brighthouse who have previously posted revenues circa £200m. It is worth remembering that poverty is a construct, capitalism means there will always be winners and losers, and those who lose, lose badly.

It might seem unusual to bring this back to students' unions, but I think that there are things students' unions can do to help alleviate poverty and inequality, not just with students, but with society more broadly.

Armstrong asserts that it is predicted that up 500,000 people will be using foodbanks by 2015. The nutritional quality of food collected from foodbanks is often poor, food is favoured for its calorific content and the time it keeps before spoiling, rather than nutritional value. Students' unions have opened food cooperatives and sell food at cost price, if we are to integrate ourselves better in to the community we could advertise this service further. Students' unions have previously collected food for foodbanks, and gifted food to the homeless. Ultimately, small steps, but not without some good consequences.

Credit Unions are widely praised throughout the book as a means of providing finance at low interest rates. It is possible for students' unions to offer loans to their students without charging interest, especially poignant given how payday lenders are now specifically targeting students. It is probably beyond the realms of the charitable objectives of students' unions to establish themselves as credit unions, but it is something worth considering as part of our wider role in society.

Finally, the book discusses at length that one of the ways in which communities come together is through shared activity. There is nothing stopping students' unions advertising their societies more broadly to wider society and letting members of the community take part in them more readily. We already offer low cost activities to our students, and there is nothing to stop us extending this further.

In any case these are only some small steps, and will only make a small change to a limited number of people. Give Armstrong's book a read, it summarises my feelings on inequality in society far better than I can articulate them.

The Road to Wigan Pier is a fantastic.

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.