SFS views in connection with UKÄ's report “Student influence - Mapping and analysis of the student influence's conditions after the abolition of compulsory compulsory education”

On 2 February 2017, UKÄ published the report “Student Influence - Mapping and Analysis of the Conditions of Student Influence after the Abolition of Union Compulsory Education” (no. 111-99-16). The subject of the report is of great importance to the Swedish National Union of Students and we present here the most important views on the report.

Download printable PDF of the comments here

 

Overall comment

After several years of waiting with uncertainty and ambiguity after the abolition of the union bond, Student Union Sweden will now see a snapshot of how the abolition has affected our conditions. Without tailoring our words, we can state that the situation is urgent. Acute to the extent that the proposals for change aim to remedy the more acute problems. This makes us ask the question: Where did the long-term sustainability thinking go?

Solving the more acute problems for student influence is certainly wise, but UKÄ's focus on emergency measures clearly shows that a strong, independent and long-term sustainable student movement will be delayed.

 

 

Financing of student influence

The report proposes that the state subsidy for student influence be increased so that it corresponds to the unions' actual costs. The increase would correspond to the sum the higher education institutions today take from the education grants and give to the unions. UKÄ believes that the proposal can be cost-neutral, as the education grants could then be reduced by a corresponding amount. The report does not propose any change to the current system where the state subsidy for student influence is distributed to the higher education institutions, which in turn distributes it to the unions.

SFS is positive about increasing the state subsidy for student influence, but finds the reasoning about cost neutrality highly depressing. A reduction in education grants is not acceptable even if the purpose is good. Swedish higher education is already suffering from a far-reaching resource erosion, and not retaining funding for education at the same time as the unions' conditions are secured from another source will hardly be quality-promoting. The unions' main task regarding monitoring and development of education quality is apparently put in conflict with the proposed solution to create conditions so that they can fulfill the task. The government should increase the state subsidy for student influence without reducing the education grant and the result must be that the unions receive increased funding without the educations being affected.

SFS is critical of UKÄ's decision not to propose any change in how the state subsidy for student influence is paid to the unions. Today, the grant is paid to the higher education institutions, which in turn distribute it to the unions. SFS has previously expressed concern that this approach puts the unions in a position of dependence on the university. In the report, UKÄ does not fully respond to this concern. The report adds valuable knowledge about the unions 'and higher education institutions' views on how the grant is distributed. The picture that emerges is that the current system risks creating a position of dependence, but that it can also contribute to good contact between the union and the university. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the grant was paid directly to the unions, it would have both positive and negative consequences. The overall best solution, however, would be to pay the grant directly to the unions, but at the same time to develop new solutions to promote good contact between the university and the student union without creating a position of dependency. The report should have highlighted such an opportunity, as it would promote the independence of the unions.

 

Knowledge-raising initiatives

SFS is positive to UKÄ's proposal to increase knowledge about student influence among students, unions and higher education institutions. UKÄ believes that knowledge needs to be increased about how the system of student influence is intended to work, about the legislation and about what state grants for student influence are intended to be used for. UKÄ therefore proposes that the government should find ways to remedy a lack of knowledge and ensure that student unions have satisfactory knowledge in order to be able to pursue a successful student influence.

SFS would like to emphasize that the student unions with a relatively small addition of resources would have excellent conditions to increase their knowledge relevant to student influence. In order to promote the independence of the individual student unions, a good solution would have been for a knowledge-raising initiative to be financed through specially targeted funds directly to the unions. The unions could then decide for themselves whether the knowledge-raising initiatives should take place locally or within the framework of national cooperation. As a national co-operation body, SFS is of course prepared to contribute to an increase in knowledge, for example through co-ordination and training initiatives, and could effectively do this if the government chooses to provide resources for the purpose in some form.

 

Long-term conditions

SFS is critical of UKÄ's proposal not to extend the term for union status from the current three years. Admittedly, most unions and universities believe that three years works well, but most respondents point out that it would be desirable for the period to be extended to four or five years, and there does not really seem to be any opposition to a certain extension. SFS believes that the opportunity to work long-term would benefit from an extended period of union status. If the report shows that some unions would benefit from an extension, while a number of unions would be unaffected, then a reasonable conclusion seems to be that an extension would be an improvement on the whole.

 

SFS views in brief

  • The financing of student influence must clearly guarantee equal conditions, independence vis-à-vis higher education institutions and long-term sustainable conditions that do not risk negative consequences for the quality of education.
  • In order to be able to shoulder the responsibility that the government and the Riksdag have placed on the unions' willing shoulders, good conditions and increased knowledge are required.
  • It is remarkable that the report in its proposals does not satisfactorily take into account the desire of several unions and SFS expressed regarding long-term conditions in the form of extended time regarding union status.

 

This is just the beginning of the development work that is expected. SFS is ready, we know student influence!

 

Caroline Sundberg, SFS chairman                

Charlotta Tjärdahl, SFS vice chairman

 

Download printable PDF of the comments here