Decoupling Academic and Non-Academic Debt

University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

1. What was the campaign, and what did it aim to achieve?

The campaign we would like to nominate for this award is something we are very proud of as it directly improves the welfare and experience of students. The campaign was centred on the decoupling of non-academic debt from academic debt in the University’s practice of withdrawing facilities IT for students in debt. Such non-academic debt included, in the main, those related to students living in University accommodation but also included debts relating to other services, such as the University nursery.. The Exec considered it to be morally and fundamentally unethical for a student to be penalised academically for these types of debt and set about a process of questioning its justification and existence, as well as establishing its legality. The aim from the outset was to achieve the alteration of the University Byelaws that stated that if a student failed to pay the non-academic fees, such as accommodation, on time, they would be unable to access their online university IT facilities and virtual learning platforms all of which are integral to students’ studies. The policy was considered to be out of date - the Bye Laws drawn up two decades previously when IT was not such a major consideration in a students’ academic experience - and inconsiderate of the implications they were causing to students. The Exec felt that this practice, in fact, tended to compound students’ problems rather than help them resolve

them.

2. How did the campaign demonstrate best practice in planning, communication, team working and evaluation?

The subject was firstly raised in 2008 by the Advice and Support Centre (ASC) team of our SU, and since then ASC had been gathering as much information as possible, supporting the Executive Officers to plan the most appropriate and efficient way to bring about change. Additionally, our SU’s President and Welfare Vice President liaised with the University’s Secretary over the legality of the issue, researched the situation at other University’s (drawing on cases such as at Kingston), contacted NUS, utilized information from the OIA, and gathered information (appropriately confidential) of individual student cases. In liaising with such a range of stakeholders, they were then able to compile an effective and comprehensive report to present to the University’s Academic Board, already having obtained support from the University Secretary. This did not mean that the campaign did not meet initially with some strong opposition, mainly from the finance and accommodation sectors of the University. By showing tenacity and strength of opinion and developing the report in certain areas, whilst convincing key University personnel of the need for this change, they achieved success.

3. What did the campaign achieve and what quantifiable impact did it have on others locally or nationally?

Wolverhampton is one of only a handful of Universities who from September 2013 will adopt a policy of decoupling academic and non-academic debt. The alteration in policy means the University is now in the process of producing a revised accommodation contract for students in halls of residence and amended debt recovery policies, on which the Students’ Union has been consulted. This is a huge win for Wolverhampton students but we also see it as a win for students nationally. We hope that our success in bringing about this change inspires other Students’ Unions to address the same issue with their Universities as it is a battle that can be won.

4. How did the campaign show creativity in the delivery of campaign objectives through events, activities, and communication channels?

For this campaign, the leading team of the SU decided that rather than running a traditional campaign, they would take a more discrete approach on the subject. They therefore contacted key staff of the university and communicated effectively with them about the objectives of the campaign. This approach led to building closer relationships with the University, and solving the issue through selected university channels. This ensured that the proposal was well listened to and understood by key individuals who were behind the move once it was tabled at the relevant university committees structure. It revealed the true power and benefits of having a strong, considered approach by the Executive, a genuine partnership with the University, and of also being a respected Union that is considered to truly represent the voice of students.

5. How did the campaign utilise resources within the student body, local stakeholders and/or the media?

The campaign was based on the thread of complaints received through our SU’s Advice and Support Centre over recent years, as well as feedback from our Student Representatives at School and Course level. Our Union Council were involved in the on-going progress and development of the campaign and key stakeholders at the University were consulted before the final paper was submitted. As the paper was submitted on behalf of the student body, their involvement was key from the outset. The number of students who will now benefit from this alteration in University policy will be large and will continue to benefit for years to come. We estimate that, per year around 8% of our entire student population (based on the 1759 students with a current accommodation invoice due), could have their IT facilities withdrawn for non-academic debt.

The results indicate how well our SU can work with its members and the University to achieve positive results for students and a change in attitude and culture across the University. This is one example where students be confident that, as their SU, we will listen to them and react to the issues that affect them most.