Why do British governments find it so hard to say sorry?

When it comes to British politics, sorry really does seem to be the hardest word. I’m not talking about the yah-boo of Prime Minister’s Question Time, or the ludicrous #saysorry campaign being waged by childish Tories on Twitter. I’m talking about the really big questions where our country owes a very serious apology for past crimes and actions.

The latest issue to catch public eye concerns the treatment of children sent abroad to reside in distant parts of Britain’s Empire, brought back into the attention of the media following the decision of Australia’s Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to apologise to child migrants in Australia for the appalling psychological, physical and sexual abuse they suffered. News of their suffering is not new. Over on his blog, the BBC’s Nick Bryant points out that the abuse they suffered was revealed more than two decades ago by British social worker, Margaret Humphreys. He accuses the British government of now being ’shamed into an apology’ by Australia’s Labor government.

Baroness Amos, Britain’s High Commissioner in Australia points out that Tony Blair’s government did express strong regret for the actions of past governments that led to the appalling abuse of Britain’s deported children. Nick Bryant points out that Tony Blair’s government also helped to fund family reunions for those who had been affected.

It is less likely that Gordon Brown’s government has been ’shamed’ into an apology and more likely that the latest example of moral leadership shown by Kevin Rudd’s administration, in stark contrast to his Liberal predecessor, has given Britain the diplomatic green light to follow suit. That Gordon Brown’s government has moved so quickly to confirm that an apology will be made in the new year is welcome.  

Nonetheless, this would not be the first occasion where an apology has been left wanting. In 2007, Tony Blair went further than any other British Prime Minister, and most other western leaders, in expressing “deep sorrow and regret” on behalf of the British government for the UK’s role in the slave trade, but stopped short of the full apology that many campaigners continue to demand. While the government’s reluctance to issue a full apology undoubtedly due to concern about claims for financial compensation, it is deeply unfortunate that the British government has yet to follow the General Synod of the Church of England in issuing a full apology.

Since members of the current government clearly had no role in the child migrant programme that saw British children subjected to horrific abuse in a foreign land, or a slave trade that has scarred human history and left a lasting legacy to the detriment of the majority of the world’s population, an apology is in many ways symbolic. But as Gordon Brown showed with his apology for the treatment of Alan Turing, the gay Second World War code breaker, sorry need not be the hardest word and can mean a great deal to those who want to hear it.

Bad blogger…

I have been a very, very bad blogger in recent months! It’s a challenge trying to keep this blog up to speed whilst being out and about getting the job done as NUS president. Will try to do better, especially as politics and the debate ahead of the General Election is becoming a bit more exciting.

Hopefully going to bring this blog back to life throughout conference season. I’m off to Trades Union Congress in Liverpool tomorrow morning, Labour in Brighton the week after next and Conservatives in Manchester the week after that. I’ll be doing some tweeting throughout (Tweeting Streeting is updated more regularly than my poor old blog!) and will blog some observations.

I’m also about to start blogging more regularly on the NUS website, which is having a little refresh tomorrow as well as keeping up my blog aimed at students’ union officers (more internally focused) up to date.

That’s the plan anyway. The best laid plans etc…

NUS CONDEMNS “STAGGERING INCOMPETENCE” OF ACCESS WATCHDOG OVER STUDENT SUPPORT FIASCO

Here’s the NUS press release we issued this afternoon after a period of careful consideration and reflection. I did not feel we could stay silent any longer while students are being let down by a body that is blatantly not independent and is betraying the students it was established to protect…

The National Union of Students (NUS) today condemned the record of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and called for its director, Sir Martin Harris to take responsibility for its failings and resign.

The move follows the announcement of freeze in minimum bursary levels that will mean poorer students are no longer to be fully supported through higher education, despite a duty on the access regulator to ensure adequate levels of student support. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills had set out the duties of OFFA in a 2004 letter to Sir Martin Harris, in which he ordered him to ensure that any difference between the level of top-up fees and the maximum student loan should be covered by bursaries.

This week’s announcement that the minimum bursary will be frozen at £319 and the maximum grant level will remain at £2,906, while the top-up fee cap will rise by 2.04% to £3,290 will create a shortfall of £65 each year for the poorest students.

Wes Streeting, NUS President said: “NUS warned in 2004 that the regulatory power of OFFA rendered it toothless. Today it is clear that not only is this body toothless, it is curled up in the laps of vested interests. It is quite clear that OFFA has entirely failed to deliver on the objectives with which it has been entrusted and has been utterly discredited by its staggering incompetence in undertaking its duty to ensure fair access.

“Under the leadership of Sir Martin Harris we have seen barely a whimper about underspending on student support to the tune of £19 million, a soft touch to universities cutting bursary budgets and a call to increase tuition fees by a whopping 60 per cent at a time of widespread graduate unemployment. OFFA has declined even to comment on this week’s announcement by the Government that student grants are to be frozen and fees increased.

“It is clear that OFFA, as it is presently constituted, is more interested in protecting the vested interests of its masters than protecting the real interests of students. I have no confidence in the current leadership of OFFA and Sir Martin Harris, who also moonlights as President of a Cambridge University college, must now make way for a regulator who is genuinely independent of higher education and who can fulfil OFFA’s vital duties to protect and promote fair access to university.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

• The Secretary of State for Education and Skills letter to OFFA was sent in October 2004 and stated: “For any of these students who are on courses charging more than £2,700, there will be a difference of up to £300 between the fee institution charges, and the state maintenance support that they receive. I would expect every access agreement, as a minimum requirement, to show how the institution will give financial support to students on full state support, to make up this difference.” The letter can be read in full here: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/OFFA%20final%20guidance%20letter%20October%202004.pdf

• The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills written statement of 1 July 2009, ‘Education (Student Support) Regulations’ in which changes to student were announced is available here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090701/wmstext/90701m0001.htm#09070157000071

‘Young, Jobless, Broke’: Observer report on the class on 2009

It’s a depressing read for those graduating from university this summer, but the Observer has today published an excellent report on the bleak situation facing today’s graduates.

In praise of… Jon Cruddas MP

Following his excellent contribution to the NUS fringe at Compass‘ ‘No Turning Back’ conference held in central London last weekend, I was delighted to see Jon Cruddas writing for the Mirror today about his opposition to top-up fees and support for NUS’ alternative approach.

NUS is currently pushing for representation on the forthcoming tuition fees review, due to be announced by Lord Mandelson later this year. I hope that the terms of reference and remit of the review deliver on the government’s stated commitment to listening to students.

Thanks Jon!

Is abolishing traditional university lectures really that radical?

‘Student leader Wes Streeting wants universities to abolish lectures’ claimed the headline of a Times article reporting on a comment piece I’ve written for this month for Policy Review magazine. I’ve had some e-mail about this already and have enjoyed reading the comment on the Times piece.

I wasn’t quite advocating the complete abolition of lectures, or a wholesale move towards e-learning. I do, however, believe that academics’ time could be better used to deliver the kind of personalised learning and contact time that students tell NUS they want. I’ve reproduced the article for Policy Review below and would welcome comments!

———————————————————————-

Lectures: first target of the teaching revolution

The challenging financial climate should encourage a radical overhaul of the way that undergraduates are taught

History is littered with countless examples of revolutions influenced or brought about by times of economic hardship. In spite of optimistic projections from the Treasury that the first shoots of recovery will begin to emerge in the New Year, record levels of public borrowing and a relatively poor settlement for the higher education in the budget point to a challenging financial climate for universities for the foreseeable future. While this backdrop may not see our vice chancellors storming the barricades to overthrow our political system, it should serve as an incentive – alongside the altogether more important catalyst of student appetite – to revolutionise learning and teaching in higher education.

In my higher education revolution, the first up against the wall would be the lecture. Why is it, in the age of mass higher education, that we continue to pack lectures theatres with hundreds of students for a format designed for teaching no more than twenty students in an elite system? I represent the first generation of students willing and able to conduct themselves as digital natives and yet, where institutions are trying to catch up with virtual learning environments, too often the potential of virtual learning is limited to acting as a simple vehicle for downloading materials.

Come the revolution, I’d see virtual learning environments acting as a space for students to come together and collaborate. When asked ‘what motivates you to learn?’ the second most popular response from students in our research was ‘collaborating with other students’ (57%). Give students the opportunity to inspire each other and, in turn, they shall inspire their lecturers.

We should extend this spirit of inspiration to assessment: assessment for learning, not just of learning. In an age where students are tested to tedium through their schooling, isn’t it time for our universities to find a better way of doing it beyond the bog standard two hour exam at the end of each course?

Students are already pointing to areas where they would like to see their experience improved. Take the issue of feedback, which has scored consistently lower than overall levels of student satisfaction since the inception of the National Student Survey. Our research found that only 25% of students receive verbal feedback on their assessments, compared with 71% who would like it. The amount of time it takes to receive feedback on coursework was also highlighted as a cause for concern, with a quarter of students having to wait more than five weeks for feedback, which is wholly unacceptable. Feedback should be a formative part of the process, not simply the result of summative assessment after an assignment is handed in.

Students also want a more personalised experience. It’s why 40% of students in higher education are choosing to study part time. It’s why so many students now take an active interest in shaping their own learning experience. It’s also why the process of higher education in this country can’t afford to stand still in a rapidly changing world.

Flexibility has to be a defining characteristic of the new higher education framework, due to be published by the Secretary of State, John Denham, later this year. With it, we need to build a new culture of lifelong learning in Britain; where those who decide not to progress to another year aren’t derided for the years they’ve yet to complete, but recognised and valued for the credit they’ve accumulated and – critically – given the funding and opportunities to return in the future to pick up where they left off.

Students want to engage in a radical debate about our teaching and learning experiences and how the quality of our institutions can be enhanced. Our Student Experience Report revealed that 57% of students would like to be involved in shaping the content, curriculum or design of their course, but only 23% feel involved in doing so.

As the sector finds itself in turbulent times, there is an obvious financial imperative for doing things better, more cheaply. But there is also an exciting opportunity to revolutionise the student experience in a way that utilises resources more efficiently, deploys staff time more effectively and enhances the student experience in a way we’d like to see.

The quality of UK higher education remains high, but it will only remain world leading if we change with the times.

Wes Streeting is the National President of the National Union of Students and was recently re-elected to serve until June 2010.

This article originally appeared in the June 2009 edition of Policy Review magazine

Students: Serious about Funding Our Future

Yesterday, the National Union of Students launched a radical model for funding higher education as an alternative to the existing market-driven variable fees system, which will be up for review by government later this year.

The campaign against student fees is what got me involved in my students’ union at university and will continues to be my priority as NUS National President until I hand over the baton to someone else in June 2010.

I have written previously to explain why NUS undertook a radical departure from simply calling for an end to any graduate contribution whatsoever in order to stop the marketisation of higher education and win a fairer funding system.

The publication of our alternative model represents the opening salvo of our campaign to empower students to ‘Fund our Future’. Yesterday – and today – we got a significant amount of press coverage and, in spite of the tube strike, got a good attendance at our launch event from every major political party, HE sector representatives and policy wonks.

There’s a healthy debate taking place on my blog over at the Guardian. I’ve also written for LabourList, Compass and an article will be appearing the July edition of Progress magazine.

There were also two fantastic articles in today’s Independent education supplement recognising how far NUS has come as a serious campaigning organisation: one on HE funding and one on postgraduates.

In the autumn, we will be taking the debate to every major Party conference and to universities and colleges up and down the country. I’m also hoping to generate some debates with Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat clubs on campuses. If you’d like me, or someone else from NUS, to speak at an event, drop me an e-mail.

NUS initiated a public debate about the future of our higher education system, demonstrating that alternatives exist and reminding proponents of the marketisation of our universities that they have a fight on their hands. Bring on the 2009 fees review!

Oxford Tories: Conservative Future? I sincerely hope not…

Just had my attention drawn to this article in the Daily Mail exposing the shameful conduct of members of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) during their presidential election hustings.

According the the Mail, after being ask to tell inappropriate jokes at part of their question and answer session, Nick Gallagher, the publications officer, said: ‘What do you say if you see a TV moving across your living room? “Drop it, n*****.” ’ Another student was said to have made a gag about a family of three black people being lynched.

This utterly reprehensible behaviour has resulted in two students being suspended from the Conservative Party. But while the President of OUCA, Anthony Boutall, has arranged a disciplinary panel to take action against anyone found to have made racist remarks, the most alarming thing about the whole of the Mail’s story was the source quoted as saying that those present ’laughed their heads off.’ Fortunately, Oxford University Students’ Union, which works incredibly hard to widen access to Oxford University, has not seen this as a laughing matter and has issued a statement to condemn the incident and protect the reputation of a university that continues to struggle to recruit students from non-traditional backgrounds.  

It’s welcome that the Conservative Party has suspended two individuals. Following an investigation, David Cameron needs to show decisive leadership against racism by expelling these individuals from the Conservative Party. I notice that Baroness Thatcher is Patron of OUCA and William Hague is the Honorary President. Without wanting to tar the entire membership of the association, the fact that people saw fit to laugh their heads off while this string of events unfolded warrants the resignation of Thatcher and Hague to send a clear message from Conservative past that it will not tolerate racism in Conservative Future.

== UPDATE: 1327  ToryBear reports that Michael Howard has pulled out of an appearance at OUCA and National Conservative Future Chairman Michael Rock has pointed out that OUCA are not actually affiliated to CF. I bet he’s glad of that today!

Honour Britain’s Heroes: Stop the BNP

This week sees the 65th anniversary of the ‘D-Day’ Normandy landings. The BNP are shamefully running their campaign as ‘the Battle for Britain’. As we remember the heroes who fought the real Battle of Britain, we need to encourage everyone – friends, family, strangers – to use their vote on Thursday and to make every vote an anti-racist vote!

I’ll be out in Liverpool and Manchester this week, joining students to mobilise the vote against BNP leader Nick Griffin. Click the image above to find a Hope Not Hate event near you! Even just a couple of hours makes a difference!

If you’re in any doubt that the BNP isn’t a legitimate, mainstream party, have a watch of this:

Labour Campaign for Democratic Renewal Gathers Pace

The campaign inside the Labour Party for major democratic renewal out of the ashes of the scandal caused by MP’s expense claims gathers pace with the launch of the ‘Real Reform Now’ campaign by Progress.

It follows the launch of the ‘Vote for a Change’ campaign in the Observer, the Sunday before last, calling for a referendum on the voting system to coincide with the next General Election. Today, a new website has been launched – sign up now!

In addition to the campaign for electoral reform, I was happy to put my name to Progress’ campaign for a ‘citizens convention’ to look at:

• House of Lords reform
• Parliamentary reform including fixed term Parliaments and strengthening Select Committees and other ways of holding the Executive to greater account
• Funding of political parties
• Changing the voting system to more closely reflect voters’ preferences resulting in a referendum on the day of the next general election
• New routes into politics including primaries and directly elected mayors
• Greater devolution of power, accountability and funding to local government

Stephen Twigg has written an excellent article setting out the case for urgent and major reform of Britain’s creaking constitutional settlement.  

The list of signatories to both campaigns reveals an emerging consensus across the different traditions of the Labour movement over electoral reform; in addition to calls from both Compass and Progress for a referendum on electoral reform, signatories include Fabians, members of Young Labour and Labour Students, ippr as well as Labour peers, MP’s and PPC’s. Billy Hayes, General Secretary of the CWU, has become the first affiliated trade union leader to back electoral reform. PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka is also backing reform. Gordon Brown indicated over the weekend that he was looking to establish some sort of ‘council’ to look into these issues.

To seize the moment, it is time for all sections of the Labour movement who support real reform to come together a build a united campaign. The opportunity is there. It’s time to reach out and take it.