IUS0011

Written evidence submitted by the National Union of Students (NUS)

I am writing on behalf of NUS to provide evidence and insights into the profound impact of the recent industrial action, particularly the Marking and Assessment Boycott, on students across the country.

Strike action began in 2018 with a dispute over pension changes for many university employees. This has continued to the current day, with a parallel dispute widening out over broader issues concerning a decline in pay and conditions. While the two sides did re-engage late last year and a resolution was reached with regards to the pension dispute,  we note that the broader dispute continues, with staff considering strike action at Aberdeen University,   striking across five college in the north-east of England, across Capital City College Group, London’s largest further education college group, and across all six of Northern Irelands FE colleges. 

NUS is pleased to read that UCEA talks with UCU went well last year, but with strike action continuing we believe it is crucial for the negotiations to urgently continue  so that a solution can be found once and for all. 

With that in mind, this submission addresses the key points outlined by the Education Committee:
 

How have students been impacted by industrial action at their universities?

The industrial action, notably the Marking and Assessment Boycott, has significantly disrupted the academic experiences of students. A delay in the assessment and feedback process has left students in a state of uncertainty regarding their academic progress, at times impacting their ability to move on to employment or further study, as well as visa applications (either, for home students, abroad; or, for international students, in the UK).

At some institutions, vivas have been affected, with some PhD students prevented from completing their vivas before the application period for postdoctoral roles, and some international PhD students prevented from completing before the end of their visas. Furthermore, the disruption has affected students' mental well-being, causing stress and anxiety due to the lack of clarity and support. Many have taken to social media to voice their frustration and appeal for support from colleagues.

The student body has been broadly supporting of the UCU strike actions, as demonstrated by a February 2023 NUS survey of 1621 students.

78% supported the UCU strike action, with 51% strongly supporting it.

When asked to what extent they supported staff taking other action, such as marking boycotts, 73% supported such action, with 44% strongly supporting it.

NUS and the broader student movement understand that poor working conditions for staff have an impact on the quality of teaching undergraduates receive. Indeed, as Nehaal Bajwa, NUS VP for Liberation and Equality noted in a recent meeting of the APPG for students: “PhD students are working in universities teaching undergraduates, often for poor pay and under poor conditions, so they are burning the candle at both ends and burning out, and this then impacts the quality of teaching undergraduates get.”

It is for this reason that in July 2023, NUS and a score of Sabbatical officers from across the country, signed an open letter demanding UCEA return to the negotiating table to settle the dispute with UCU.

What mitigations do universities have in place against industrial action negatively impacting students?

Some universities have implemented mitigations such as extending deadlines and providing additional support services, but the effectiveness of these measures varies widely.

An example of good practice is shown by Queen’s University Belfast, who positively engaged with the UCU and reached an agreement to end the marking and assessment boycott, the first such agreement in the country.

But some institutions have tried to undermine strike action, in particular the marking and assessment boycott, by pressuring others (in particular those on temporary and insecure contracts, such as PhD students) to do the marking of those on strike.

But paying other staff, who are not specialists in the field or who may not have experience on the module, to mark and assess (especially if asked to do so for finalists’ and master’s work), is concerning to students, as these people may not be able to do their work justice.

NUS believes such action – penalising staff for striking, trying to undermine strike action by getting others to do the work of striking staff is counterproductive, will only entrench the systematic issues the strike action is being taken over, and sow bad feeling and distrust amongst staff and so make it harder for the two sides to reach agreement. 

The inconsistencies of approach have led to confusion among students, exacerbating the negative impact of the industrial action, as well as resulting in inequality across students from different institutions.

Furthermore, the failure and inability of universities to mitigate the impact of the strikes however hard they try, and the consequent urgent need for UCEA to return to serious and meaningful negotiations with UCU, are demonstrated by the strikes’ continuing impact.

For example, complaints to the OIA are at a record high and while they report only a small number of complaints being due to industrial action, there is evidence this is changing.

There are cases listed on the OIA website of students making claims against universities due to strike actions, such as this anonymised complaint from 2022, where a student was awarded almost £600.  The number of cases is likely to grow, with NUS aware of growing student dissatisfaction. For example, the York Student Action Group has launched a petition demanding student fee rebates. Also of note is that one of the legal teams involved in bringing a claim against universities for their provision during the pandemic, are now preparing a group claim for those affected by strike action.

NUS believes such student dissatisfaction is only likely to get worse, and if universities wish to avoid further payouts, they must put pressure on UCEA to seek a satisfactory resolution with UCU.

Why did the impact of the recent Marking and Assessment Boycott vary so much between different universities?

The variation in impact can be attributed to the differing levels of preparedness and response strategies among universities. Institutions with robust contingency plans and effective communication channels experienced fewer disruptions. Conversely, universities lacking a clear approach to communication, or who had no plans in place regarding supporting students with visas; information; and other things, struggled to address the challenges posed by the industrial action, leading to more significant disruptions.

Several universities have published their mitigation strategies online and these can be found easily enough, but NUS has heard from students and their representatives that the success of such measures has been variable.

But regardless, NUS would argue that mitigation can only do so much and that the only way to ensure students aren’t adversely impacted is for a settlement to reach. For this reason, we reiterate our demand for UCEA to engage in meaningful negotiations with UCU.

What action are trade unions taking to mitigate the impact of their industrial action on students?

Trade unions, and unionised staff at institutions, are aware of the impact their actions may have on students and are making efforts to minimise disruption. This includes providing clear communication to students about the reasons behind the industrial action, as well as advocating for fair compensation and support for affected students. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is contingent on the willingness of employers, such as UCEA, to engage in meaningful dialogue.

While the Marking and Assessment Boycott has been disruptive, it must be understood that staff overwork and burnout, as well as short term, insecure contracts, and other issues endemic in higher education, have also been disruptive to students’ learning experiences. With universities opting to cut staff numbers further while spending millions on new buildings, it would seem as though there is a distinct lack of seriousness from universities when it comes to the student experience.

Indeed, it must be remembered that these strikes did not come from nowhere. In March 2022, a UCU report found two thirds of staff were considering leaving the sector. While the Covid pandemic saw over 3,000 staff made redundant, despite a 9% increase in undergraduate numbers.

Similarly, a research paper by HEPI comparing academic working conditions with those of other sectors found that a larger proportion of academics are on temporary contracts. While the paper found that overall academics fared better than other comparative sectors in regard to pensions, leave, sick pay, parental leave and access to sabbaticals, it is important to note that the report found that:

The evidence also confirms that academics score poorly on wellbeing and mental health, with excessive workloads and expectations commonly having a detrimental impact on their lives.

The most important finding is that the expense of the extra benefits enjoyed by academics on permanent contracts come at the cost of younger staff at an earlier stage in their careers, who can struggle to move on up. For newer academics, it can be much harder to find secure and permanent contracts than it is for employees in other sectors.

These points are key, because much of the teaching of undergraduates is conducted precisely by the PhD students affected by this disparity, and it these people who are at greatest risk of burnout.

What action did the Government take to mitigate the impact of the Marking and Assessment Boycott on students?

Regrettably, the government's response has been inadequate in mitigating the impact of the industrial action. There is a pressing need for government intervention to facilitate constructive dialogue between UCEA and trade unions. The absence of a coordinated and proactive approach has left students feeling neglected and has prolonged the resolution of the dispute.

In conclusion, we urge the Education Selection Committee to emphasize the urgency of UCEA returning to the negotiating table. It is imperative both parties engage in meaningful discussion to find a resolution that safeguards the interests of students and preserves the integrity of the higher education system, and it is important universities work proactively with local union branches and listen to the issues faced by workers, instead of treating unions with hostility which we all too often see.

January 2024