Imagine studying in a Wales where every student understands their rights and responsibilities.<\/p>\n
Where module feedback drives real change, where student representatives have time, resources and power to make a difference, and where complaints drive learning, not defensiveness.<\/p>\n
Where every student contributes to their community in some way \u2013 and where decisions can\u2019t be made about students without students.<\/p>\n
When the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022<\/a> was being drafted, the inclusion of a mandatory Learner Engagement Code was important \u2013 Wales resolved to put into primary legislation what England had buried in the B Conditions and Scotland had largely left to institutional discretion.<\/p>\n Section 125 now requires the Commission to prepare and publish a code about learner involvement in decision-making that\u2019s not optional, or best practice \u2013 it\u2019s law.<\/p>\n This year the newly formed commission (MEDR) has been informally consulting on it \u2013 but it\u2019s now been so long since the original debates that there\u2019s a danger everyone helping to develop the thing will forget what it was supposed to do.<\/p>\n Nobody will benefit from something that emerges as something weak or vague. The opportunity is for Wales to lead the way with some crunchy \u201ccomply or explain\u201d provisions for universities in Wales that reflect the fact that this has been put in primary legislation.<\/p>\n The cost of getting it wrong<\/p>\n We know what happens when learner engagement is treated as an afterthought. In England, providers often silence critique on reputational grounds \u2013 the Office for Students\u2019 (OfS) free speech guidance had to explicitly state that students have the right to publicly criticise their institutions. Imagine needing regulatory clarification that criticism is allowed in a democracy.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Scottish institutions celebrate their \u201cpartnership\u201d approach while student representatives struggle to influence decisions that matter. Sparqs frameworks look good on paper, but without regulatory teeth, they rely on institutional goodwill. And goodwill, as any student rep will tell you, tends to evaporate when difficult decisions need making.<\/p>\n When module evaluation becomes a tick-box exercise rather than genuine dialogue, problems fester. When student reps are excluded from decisions about their own education, drop-out rates climb. When complaints are buried rather than learned from, the same issues affect cohort after cohort.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve seen a lot of it over the years. The disabled student who gave up trying to get adjustments implemented because every lecturer claimed the central service\u2019s plans were \u201cmerely advisory\u201d. The international PGT student who couldn\u2019t complain about teaching quality because they feared visa implications. The part-time student who couldn\u2019t access support services because everything was designed around full-time, on-campus students.<\/p>\n The student facing disciplinary proceedings who wasn\u2019t allowed an advocate and faced a panel with no student members \u2013 in contrast to the support available to staff in similar situations.<\/p>\n These aren\u2019t edge cases \u2013 they\u2019re systematic failures that a robust Code could prevent. Wales has a genuine opportunity to do something different \u2013 to create a Code with teeth that makes learner engagement mandatory, measurable and meaningful.<\/p>\n Learning from what works<\/p>\n The most effective student engagement systems require common features. They\u2019re comprehensive, covering everything from module evaluation to strategic planning, and are backed by resources, ensuring student representatives aren\u2019t expected to volunteer countless hours without support. And crucially, they have consequences when institutions fail to comply.<\/p>\n The key is moving from \u201cshould\u201d to \u201cmust\u201d, with a comply or explain mechanism that has genuine bite.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s how it could work. The Code would set out clear standards \u2013 not aspirations but requirements. Providers would either have to comply with the standards or publicly explain why they\u2019ve chosen an alternative approach that delivers equivalent or better outcomes.<\/p>\n But \u2013 and this is crucial \u2013 explanations wouldn\u2019t be allowed to be boilerplate excuses. They would need to be evidence-based, time-limited, and subject to scrutiny.<\/p>\n The Commission would assess compliance annually, not through tick-box returns but through triangulated evidence \u2013 student surveys, complaint patterns, representation effectiveness metrics, and crucially, the views of student representatives themselves.<\/p>\n Where providers persistently fail to meet standards without adequate justification, consequences would follow \u2013 from improvement notices to conditions on funding.<\/p>\n There would be an expectation of an annually agreed student partnership agreement \u2013 setting out both processes and priority actions \u2013 and an expectation that students\u2019 unions would produce an annual report on the experiences of students at that provider.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t about micromanaging institutions \u2013 it\u2019s about establishing minimum standards while allowing flexibility in how they\u2019re met. A small FE provider might implement representation differently than a large university, but both must demonstrate their approach delivers genuine student voice in decision-making.<\/p>\n Student rights and democratic education<\/p>\n The Code should first establish that students are both consumers with enforceable rights and partners in their education. This dual recognition ends the sterile debate about whether students are one or the other. It means providers must respect consumer rights (quality, promises kept, redress) while creating genuine partnership structures.<\/p>\n Knowing your rights matters. Following Poland\u2019s model, all students should receive comprehensive training on their rights and responsibilities within 14 days of starting. That shouldn\u2019t be an optional freshers\u2019 week session \u2013 it should be mandatory education covering consumer rights, representation opportunities, complaints procedures, support services, and collective responsibilities.<\/p>\n Crucially, the training should be developed and delivered by the SU. There should be written materials in (both) plain language(s), recorded sessions for those who can\u2019t attend, annual refreshers, and staff trained to respect and uphold these rights. When every graduate understands both their rights and responsibilities, Wales will transform not just higher education but society.<\/p>\n Protected status and academic adjustments<\/p>\n Following Portugal\u2019s model, student representatives should get protected status. That means academic adjustments for representative duties, just as providers must accommodate pregnancy or disability. No student should face the choice between failing their degree or fulfilling their democratic mandate.<\/p>\n Representatives should get justified absences for all activities \u2013 not just formal meetings but preparation, consultation, and training. Assessments should be rescheduled without penalty, deadlines adjusted based on representative workload, and attendance requirements modified. Reps should get protection from any form of academic discrimination.<\/p>\n The Finnish model adds another layer \u2013 ideally, student representatives in governance should receive academic credit or remuneration (or both). Learning through representation is learning \u2013 about negotiation, governance, and strategic thinking. They are skills that matter in any career.<\/p>\n Module evaluation as universal engagement<\/p>\n The Estonian approach shows what\u2019s possible when feedback becomes embedded in academic culture. Making evaluation mandatory for module completion ensures universal participation. But it must be meaningful \u2013 published results, documented actions, closed feedback loops. Every student becomes a partner in quality enhancement, not just the engaged few.<\/p>\n Wales should adopt Estonia\u2019s three-part structure \u2013 teaching quality, student engagement, and learning outcomes. This recognises that educational success requires both good teaching and student effort. No more blaming students for poor outcomes while ignoring teaching failures, and no more student satisfaction surveys that ignore whether students are actually engaging with their learning.<\/p>\n Results should be published within modules \u2013 not buried in committee papers but visible where students choose modules. Previous evaluation results, actions taken, ongoing improvements \u2013 all should be required to be transparent. Future students should be able to see what they\u2019re signing up for, and current students should see their feedback matters.<\/p>\n Comprehensive scope of engagement<\/p>\n Sweden\u2019s clarity is instructive \u2013 students must be represented \u201cwhen decisions or preparations are made that have bearing on their courses or programmes or the situation of students.\u201d There\u2019s no weasel words about \u201cwhere appropriate\u201d or \u201cwhen practicable\u201d \u2013 if it affects students, students must be involved.<\/p>\n In the Netherlands, where decisions are made by individuals, not committees, information must be provided and consultation must occur at least 14 days in advance. And written explanations should be required when student recommendations aren\u2019t followed \u2013 because accountability matters in managerial decisions.<\/p>\n Beyond academic structures, students should be represented on professional service boards, IT committees, estates planning groups, marketing focus groups. Decisions about campus facilities or digital systems affect students as much as curriculum design \u2013 yet these areas often lack any student voice.<\/p>\n The digital environment deserves special attention. Student representatives should be involved in decisions about learning platforms, assessment systems and communication tools \u2013 not after implementation but during planning. Because digital accessibility and usability directly impact educational success.<\/p>\n Consent not consultation<\/p>\n Wales could be bold. Following the Dutch model, some decisions should require student consent, not just consultation. The Code could distinguish clearly between:<\/p>\n Matters requiring consent (cannot proceed without student agreement):<\/p>\n Matters requiring consultation (mandatory input but not binding):<\/p>\n Matters governed by a council of staff and students:<\/p>\n Matters delegated to the students\u2019 union<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t radical \u2013 it\u2019s a recognition that students are genuine partners. No other stakeholder group would accept purely advisory input on regulations governing their activities. Why should students?<\/p>\n From course reps to citizens<\/p>\n Another area where Wales could be genuinely radical would take Wales\u2019 vision of students as citizens by going beyond traditional representation structures \u2013 broadening \u201cengagement\u201d beyond academic quality.<\/p>\n The European model of subject-level associations \u2013 common from Helsinki to Heidelberg \u2013 shows what\u2019s possible. These aren\u2019t just academic societies but genuine communities combining social activities, career development, representation, and civic engagement. They create belonging at the discipline level where students actually identify.<\/p>\n In Tallinn, departmental student bodies aren\u2019t sideshows but partners in departmental culture. They organise orientation, run mentoring, coordinate with employers, feed into curriculum development \u2013 and crucially, they\u2019re funded and recognised as essential, not optional extras.<\/p>\n In some countries there\u2019s even a \u201cduty of contribution\u201d where students volunteer to help run the institution. Green officers, peer mentors, student ambassadors \u2013 multiple routes to engagement beyond traditional representation. Not everyone wants to be a course rep. But everyone can contribute something.<\/p>\n Even if we\u2019re just talking about student clubs and societies, Wales should mandate that providers support and fund these diverse engagement routes.<\/p>\n Every student should serve somehow during their studies \u2013 it\u2019s citizenship education in practice. Some will be traditional representatives, others will mentor new students, run sustainability initiatives, organise cultural events, support community engagement. All develop democratic skills. All should share responsibility for their community.<\/p>\n Taking part<\/p>\n Some countries maintain a tripartite principle for major bodies \u2013 equal representation of students, academic staff, and professional staff \u2013 to recognise that universities are communities, not hierarchies. Maybe that\u2019s asking too much \u2013 but even with a minimum of two students in the room, representation means nothing without support.<\/p>\n Some countries require that student reps receive all documentation at least five days in advance, training on context and background, briefings on complex issues, and support to participate fully \u2013 you can\u2019t contribute if you don\u2019t understand what\u2019s being discussed.<\/p>\n When new committees or working groups are established, there should be active consideration of student membership with default presumption of inclusion. Decisions and justifications should be communicated to student representatives, and there should be annual reviews of representation effectiveness with evidence-based changes.<\/p>\n Some countries transform meetings from tokenistic to meaningful. Materials distributed five working days in advance means no ambushing student representatives with complex papers. Everything in accessible language, translated where needed, should be a standard too.<\/p>\n The Swedish innovation of publishing all decisions and rationales builds accountability. Rather than being buried in minutes, decisions get actively communicated. Students can see what\u2019s decided in their name and why \u2013 democracy requires transparency. And committees should pick up minimum student membership levels with voting rights, and there should never (ever) be just one student in a room.<\/p>\n Funded independence<\/p>\n Latvia mandates that SUs receive at least 0.5 per cent of institutional income, and minimums were agreed as part of the Australian Universities Accord. This isn\u2019t generous \u2013 it\u2019s the minimum needed for effective representation. The Welsh Code should set a minimum as a % of income, or fees \u2013 ensuring student bodies have resources to train representatives, gather evidence, and hold institutions accountable.<\/p>\n Funding should come with independence safeguards. There should be no conditions that compromise advocacy, no reductions for challenging decisions, and protected status even when (especially when) relationships become difficult. Written agreements should protect core funding even during institutional financial difficulties.<\/p>\n Beyond core funding, providers should be required to supply facilities, administrative support, IT access, and time for representatives. The split between guaranteed core funding for democratic functions and negotiated funding for service delivery would protect both representation and student services.<\/p>\n Complaints as learning and conduct<\/p>\n Complaints are a really important part of student engagement \u2013 and so the OIA\u2019s Good Practice Framework, which learns from them, should be mandatory, not optional. A proper system treats complaints as valuable intelligence, not irritations to be managed.<\/p>\n Wales should then go further, automatically converting failed appeals containing service complaints into formal complaints. When patterns emerge, compensation should go to all affected students, not just those who complained. And every provider should be required to publish on what it\u2019s learned from complaints over the past year, and what it\u2019s doing about it \u2013 with sign off from the SU.<\/p>\n The Swedish model\u2019s restrictions on disciplinary proceedings protect students from institutional overreach. Proceedings are only allowed for academic misconduct, disruption of teaching, disruption of operations and harassment. And students are given full procedural rights \u2013 including representation, disclosure and presence during evidence.<\/p>\n Wales should go further. Every student facing disciplinary proceedings should have the right to independent support, and any panel should include student members who are properly trained and supported. Peer judgement matters in community standards.<\/p>\n And neither disciplinary nor funding processes should ever be used to silence criticism, punish protest, retaliate for complaints or discourage collective action. The free speech protections in OfS\u2019 guidance should be baseline \u2013 students\u2019 right to criticise their institution is absolute, whether individually or collectively.<\/p>\n Disability rights are student rights<\/p>\n Every year, countless disabled students arrive with hope and ambition, only to find themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque system of \u201csupport\u201d that demands disclosure, documentation, negotiation, repetition, and often \u2013 silence. If Wales is to lead, then it should be unflinching in acknowledging the daily indignities that disabled students face \u2013 and bold in tackling the systemic failures that allow them to persist.<\/p>\n Adjustments, when granted, are inconsistently implemented, and advocacy, if it exists at all, is fractured and under-resourced. In many departments, reasonable adjustments are still treated as optional extras. Central services write the plans, but academic departments dispute their legitimacy, claiming subject expertise trumps legal obligation. Students are asked to justify, to prove, to persuade \u2013 again and again. And often in public \u2013 as if their access needs were a debate.<\/p>\n Disabled students can\u2019t be expected to fight these battles alone. Wales should require institutions to facilitate advocacy, embedded close to academic departments, co-located with SUs where possible, and independent enough to challenge unlawful behaviour when necessary. Not every rep can be an expert in disability law. But every student should have access to someone who is.<\/p>\n The law is clear \u2013 providers have an anticipatory duty. That means planning ahead for the barriers Disabled students face, not waiting until they fall. But few providers conduct serious, evidence-based assessments of their disabled student population by type of impairment, by subject area, by mode of study. Without that, how can anyone claim to be meeting the duty? Wales could also set the tone nationally with a mandatory bank of questions in the NSS that probes access, implementation, and inclusion.<\/p>\n Wales\u2019 code should mandate that providers move beyond warm words to hard strategy \u2013 analysing disability data with student input, mapping gaps, and resourcing change. Every provider should be required to publish a Disability Access Strategy \u2013 co-designed with students, informed by evidence, and backed with budget. And implementation should be monitored \u2013 not through passive complaints, but active auditing. Where there are failures, there should be automatic remedies \u2013 and if patterns persist, the Commission must intervene.<\/p>\n And briefing all students on disabled students\u2019 rights would help too. If every student understood what disabled students are legally entitled to, fewer adjustments would be denied, more peers would offer solidarity, and institutions would face pressure from all sides to comply with the law. Education here is empowerment \u2013 for disabled and non-disabled students alike.<\/p>\n Wales could lead<\/p>\n If all of that feels like a lot, that\u2019s because it is.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s why it was put in primary legislation \u2013 to show what\u2019s possible when you take student engagement seriously, to create structures that outlast changes in institutional leadership or political climate, and to graduate citizens who understand democracy because they\u2019ve practiced it.<\/p>\n But most importantly, to lead<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Commission will ensure that Welsh PCET providers lead the UK in learner and student engagement and representation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n