EMA: Were we wrong? [as featured in LY Libertine]

Say Educational Maintenance Allowance to most Liberal Youth members and you tend to receive a rant about how pointless the scheme was. These members, on the whole, have never truly experienced the widespread difference EMA made to hundreds of thousands of students. Some haven’t set foot in Further Education for years and only take their own experiences of the scheme into account.

I was fortunate to be President of a Further Education Students’ Union for two years, and was also on the National Union of Students Further Education Committee for a year. I got to know the true impact of EMA and met hundreds of students on the scheme. With the aid of some common Q&A and criticisms, I’ll try to explain that below as well as why Liberal Democrats were wrong to agree to its abolition.

What were the positives about EMA?

The point of EMA was to increase the number of young people from lower income families staying on in post-16 education. Enrolment figures, attendance and retention all increased under the scheme. But what was interesting was that EMA also increased success rates, resulting in young people being more likely to be able to head onto Higher Education if they so wished to.

Definitely a social mobility win.

Students on EMA didn’t really need the money. They just spent the money on booze and socialising.

Students spent EMA on a whole host of things. Of course there were the obvious costs – course materials, transport. But sometimes students spent EMA on rent, food, presents, yes even alcohol, fags or clothes!

The thing to remember is that EMA was never brought in to be perfect. It was introduced to encourage students from lower income families to continue to post-16 education. It removed financial barriers to education.

But the government cited a survey that found out 9 out of 10 students didn’t need EMA?

This survey didn’t give a true reflection on the difference EMA made to young people’s lives. The respondents were largely white year 11 & 12s – not exactly comparable to the cohort of EMA recipients, and people who hadn’t even reached Further Education yet! It was flawed research.

NUS’ EMA Satisfaction Survey gave a far more accurate picture, finding that 55% of EMA recipients wouldn’t be able to take part in education without it – a statistic that equated to over 300,000 young people.

The government has put a discretionary replacement scheme in place, as well as bursaries. We never needed EMA.

It’s too early to tell whether EMA’s replacement is working, but early signs suggest that it isn’t what the government promised. Many FE providers are seeing drops in enrolment figures and many college leaders and principals are blaming this drop on EMA’s abolition. With rising numbers of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEETs) it doesn’t take a genius to work out what is happening to this country’s next generation.

Labour were planning on scrapping the scheme anyway.

We’ll never know if the Labour party would have kept EMA had they won the last General Election, although members of NUS have expressed extreme disappointment to me that Labour won’t commit to reintroducing the scheme if they win the next election. Even if they were planning on scrapping the scheme, it’s not justification for the coalition government to enslave young people by poverty.

The compulsory education leaving age is increasing to 18 in 2015 anyway, so we no longer need EMA.

This is the argument against EMA that really gets me and many young people irate. EMA was a huge breakthrough in removing barriers to young people from lower income families continuing in education. It meant young people could afford the transport into college, as well as any course materials they needed (hair & beauty students in particular fork out around £600 for uniform and equipment).

Increasing the age that people have to stay on in education will not suddenly mean young people can fund their education.

So what would you have rather been done about the situation? And what should be done now?

I appreciate EMA wasn’t perfect. Some students genuinely didn’t need the money and would have gone to post-16 education without it. On the other hand, some students needed it and weren’t applicable. NUS produced results of its EMA Satisfaction Survey a few years ago, which identified the problems with the scheme and put forward recommendations to improve it.

After EMA was abolished, the government staged several u-turns which resulted in a better replacement for students. But all the confusion almost certainly meant students from lower income families didn’t feel that post-16 education was for them. Many would have attended open days and thought about applying in January, only for the final replacement scheme to be announced in the summer holiday – too late for students from lower-income families to feel financial secure and apply.

So EMA should have remained, but targeted to the 55% of students who needed it. But we are where we are, so what do I want done now? Well…

NUS has just produced a ‘pound in your pocket’ asking several questions about financial support for young people. This will hopefully tell us whether EMA’s replacement is up to scratch and, if it turns out that it isn’t, a u-turn should be on the cards.

After only a couple of Lib Dems rebelled on EMA, I had to seriously look at why I was a member of the party. Being a Lib Dem to me was all about believing in an open society in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity – our key belief that whether poor or rich, everyone can have the opportunities to be who they want to be.

I think there’s definitely a case for saying that Liberal Democrats have lost their way in coalition. I for one can’t count the number of blogs I’ve seen from Lib Dem members proposing illiberal ideas – leaving the EU, supporting the increase in tuition fees, agreeing with welfare reforms, etc. If we’re going to win back any of our lost support in 2015, we need to fight for our core policies to shine in everything we do.

If we had done this on the issue of Educational Maintenance Allowance, we’d have recognised that the scheme was very comparable to our core beliefs. That it DID reduce the number of 16-19 year olds enslaved by poverty. That is WAS more economically beneficial to the country and to families than if it were to not exist. That it DID break down vital poverty barriers to education. Yes, we would have recognised it wasn’t perfect, but we would have worked on improving the scheme as it was, not running along with the Conservative mantra about discretionary being better. As a result of being conformist and frankly a bit ignorant (Further Education students used to be extremely apathetic before EMA was abolished and this aspect was ignored), we joined the Tories in introducing a poor replacement and enslaving young people by poverty.

I remember seeing Simon Hughes at Lib Dem Conference, waving the preamble to our constitution on the back of his business card around saying that Liberal Democrats owned the social mobility agenda. The ability of us as a party to believe in our values, yet to not act them out, is astonishing.

EMA wasn’t perfect. But to the young people who received it, it was a life changer. If its replacement turns out to be extremely misguided, I believe as a party we need to take a look again at our core values and #saveEMA.

The fightback against Labour begins?

Below is an email from Rt Hon Nick Clegg to party members. See you what you think.

Dear _____,

Nearly two years ago, Liberal Democrats chose to do the right thing in the national interest at a time of crisis. We put tribalism aside and the good of the country first.

We didn’t come into politics to make cuts, but with the economy on the verge of collapse we knew we had to take the difficult decisions necessary to get the deficit under control and the country back on track.

And how did the Labour Party react?

They attacked us viciously. They refused to apologise or take responsibility for the mess they created. They opposed every cut and they indulged in cynical scaremongering.

In Sheffield, David Blunkett warned of ‘post-Soviet’ meltdown with people fending for themselves. It was the politics of fear and it was a disgrace.

But now, after nearly two years of opposing every cut, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls say they won’t reverse a single one. Yet they still say they oppose them.

Confused?

They have gone from being in the wrong place to being all over the place. From denial to disarray.

Many of our excellent councillors lost their seats last May because of the vicious attacks of their Labour opponents. We must not let them get away with it again.

Liberal Democrats approach this May’s elections with a track record of proud, progressive achievements in Government:

- Lifting a million of the poorest workers out of tax and cutting taxes, not for the rich but for 23m basic rate taxpayers;
- Making the well off pay their share by raising Capital Gains Tax, a new £10bn bank levy and keeping the 50p top rate of tax;
- The most generous rise in the state pension for a generation;
- A revolution in the way we support the children who need help the most when it matters the most, in the crucial early years and throughout their school lives;
- More apprenticeships than Britain has ever had before;
- And from this April, the Youth Contract, an ambitious £1bn programme to make sure every 18 to 24-year-old has the opportunity to earn or learn.

Clearing up Labour’s mess is not easy, but right. Let’s take the fight to them as May approaches.

You can see my interview on this morning’s Andrew Marr show here.

Yours,

Nick Clegg MP

Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

As featured in Lib Dem Voice: The path to 2015 should be one guided by our principles, not by doubt

Before the Christmas break, I produced an article on Lib Dem Voice about how the EU veto could and should be the first step of many where our party expresses its individuality in coalition loud and clear. After this blog I saw many opinion articles about where we stood on various issues. The conclusion? Varied.

Let’s just take one example – tuition fees. Some of us think we will be congratulated at the next General Election for making the loans system fairer. Wrong. While ensuring that up-front fees are in the past and protecting graduates by asking no one to pay money back towards their loans until they are owning over £21,000 are aspects I support, if any of us are to think we are going to somehow get a pat on the back after such a monumental pledge-break then we are extremely misguided.

When we took the responsible decision to work together with a party we despise we’ve tried to insist to the public that we as Liberal Democrats have ‘grown up’, that somehow government has made us a better party. From Lib Dem blogs supporting David Cameron’s EU break-away to others going against Lords reform, clearly government has just made us confused.

Somehow our role in coalition has meant that we’ve started getting stuck in policy discussions rather than sticking to our beliefs and allowing policy to follow on from them.

In the years ahead to 2015, our constitutional preamble must guide everything we do. Our values, particularly in relation to “no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity,” are more important than ever at a time when families on low and middle incomes are struggling to cope with financial demands.

If we had done this on the issue of Educational Maintenance Allowance, we’d have recognised that the scheme was very comparable to our core beliefs. That it DID reduce the number of 16-19 year olds enslaved by poverty. That is WAS more economically beneficial to the country and to families than if it were to not exist. That it DID break down vital poverty barriers to education. Yes, we would have recognised it wasn’t perfect, but we would have worked on improving the scheme as it was, not running along with the Conservative mantra about discretionary being better. As a result of being conformist and frankly a bit ignorant (Further Education students used to be extremely apathetic before EMA was abolished and this aspect was ignored), we joined the Tories in introducing a poor replacement and enslaving young people by poverty.

If the coalition negotiation team had stuck to Liberal Democrat principles on tuition fees, we’d have expressed it from the start as a ‘must have’ policy to not increase them. Then, if we’d introduced the fairer aspects of the scheme we have now then we’d be laughing and Nick Clegg effigies wouldn’t appear at every protest around. As it is we’re suffering badly, as young people now perceive to be enslaved by poverty, and the party probably won’t recover for a long, long time.

Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, but what can we do about it from now on?

Well, when we stick to our principles and the public hear us we do tend to get recognition. Take the Iraq war, as well as our opposition to the introduction of tuition fees as just a couple of examples.

Liberal Democrat policies do tend to resonate with people when they are listened to. We do tend to win over support. And now, in government, we have got the attention of the nation and the ability to act rather than shout from the sidelines. Being in government doesn’t mean we can’t express our opposition – after all, that’s one of the benefits of being in a coalition. We need to make sure that any criticism we face is for not quite having perfect policies rather than see our core principles questioned.

So when discussions on lords reform take centre stage, we need to be very clear ahead of the game what Liberal Democrats believe in and, more importantly, why. The same goes with reforms to welfare benefits such as the Disability Living Allowance, our relationship with the EU & foreign relations, the prospect of irreversible climate change and banking reforms including curbing executive pay – all of which will be the key issues in the years ahead that we need to get right.

Tony Blair’s memoirs said that ‘liberals’ are “happier as critics.” I say we just know the difference between right and wrong. We all know we need to express our individuality as a party in coalition if we are to succeed in 2015, and to do that we must be clearer than ever before on what we believe in, but open up discussion for how our values will be put into action.

That’s the path to success in 2015. And it’s a path we should all stick to.

Featured in Lib Dem Voice: Individuality on EU is the start of the Liberal Democrat recovery

Lib Dems would have winced when the news broke about Cameron’s EU veto, but it’s the biggest chance yet to express our party’s individuality.

Since the tuition fee rise and EMA’s abolition, I haven’t liked Nick Clegg. Although I agreed with the coalition being formed, I didn’t agree with the coalition negotiation team he chose. I haven’t agreed with a lot of what he’s done as leader. And I’ve sat grumbling about it for months. But over the past few days my respect for Nick has significantly improved.

Why? Well I’m starting to see something different from Nick and our party. I’m starting to see a glimpse of the Liberal Democrats I joined over three years ago. Nick appearing on The Andrew Marr Show was the moment it dawned on me. He said that the EU veto was ‘bitterly disappointing’ and that eurosceptics were ‘seriously misguided’, after which I frightened my girlfriend by exclaiming ‘go on Nick’ and punching the air. Putting aside the fact that politics is clearly making me a rather dull individual, it was what I and so many other Lib Dems had been hoping for.

Ever since the coalition’s formation, Liberal Democrat members up and down the land have been crying out for our individuality to be expressed loud and clear. We’ve met Nick and had long, tiring discussions on just this. We’ve quizzed Lib Dem MPs about it at every opportunity, even Christmas dinners (sorry Tim Farron!). We’ve done our best on the doorstep to explain why we couldn’t keep all our promises. Tried, and often failed with little support from the top of our party.

But Nick’s performance is the first big development in dealing with this issue. He was clear about what he felt about the EU and clear on what Liberal Democrats believed in.

Nick’s discussion with Andrew Marr wasn’t the only thing I was proud of though. Sharon Bowles MEP, Vince Cable, Paddy Ashdown, Tim Farron and so many other senior Lib Dems have been standing up for the EU recently and in turn, our individuality in government. It’s the start of what we’ve all been striving for – Liberal Democrats in government shouting loud for what we believe in, striving for a different approach to that of the eurosceptic, anti-immigration Tory right and standing up for the common sense route. While I’ve no doubt we’ve been doing all of this thus far in government, it’s only now that people are starting to pay attention. And while we’ve got people listening, we must do more of it.

If we as a party are to recover some of our lost support, we need to go back to being considered the ‘party of sense’. We need to put across why we couldn’t fulfil all our manifesto pledges, shout big about our achievements in government and continue to press for years that the public shouldn’t trust Labour again with the economy. Sitting in government appearing to nod at everything Cameron says is not what is best for Liberal Democrats and we need to use the EU veto as the launch of our General Election campaign strategy.

Most of Lib Dems agree we need to express our individuality in the coalition and see a return to community politics… and fast. This is what will win us back support and put us in a better position for the future.

Citizenship Education needs improving. The first hurdle is incorporating financial education.

If you were to gather a group of young people together and ask for their experiences of citizenship education, you’re almost certain to receive a mixed response. ‘Pointless’ one would say. ‘Boring’ mumbles another. ‘Actually I thought it was brilliant’ the one at the back pipes up. This reaction is worryingly commonplace, despite the fact citizenship education is about generating interest from the whole of society about, well, society.

For a single young person to feel that citizenship education is a waste of time is a travesty. I strongly believe that for citizenship education to work, it needs a complete overhaul.

Firstly (while this may well bring about a change in name) it should have a strong focus on politics, citizenship and economics – three key areas for three terms in a year.

Secondly, there should be a clear sign that young people are being engaged. To ensure young people are heading in the right direction tests or assessments must be incorporated. But in order to address the culture of politics, citizenship and economics being seen as dull, these tests should be fun and interactive. One suggestion was to include assessments involving a reality-style computer game – a bit like The Sims – where pupils could control a character through the process of setting up a bank account, visiting the polling station, etc. Another suggestion was a day’s event where young people would control an imaginary town, putting them in the shoes of MPs & local councillors. Engaging, interactive, unique.

Thirdly, citizenship education should start earlier in education and end later. Politics, citizenship and economics are prominent in every part of our lives, so should be a prominent part of our education system too.

Finally, the whole teaching should have a heavy focus on providing students with skills, not lectures – workshops on campaigning, debates to provide experience in public speaking, a model UN, producing case studies, and many others. These are just some examples where young people can gain invaluable skills, knowledge and experience that can’t currently be found in education. We too often moan that education now is all about making young people pass exams. This is one opportunity where we can make education about life skills, not grades.

Now while I’d love all the above to be a reality, there’s a long way to go before we get anywhere close. But there is a breakthrough.

Next week the e-petition (started by Martin Lewis from Money Saving Expert) demanding compulsory financial education in schools will be debated in parliament after over 100,000 people signed. If this is agreed by Parliament and incorporated in citizenship education, it would be a huge step forward towards a society where young people are actively engaged in politics, citizenship and economics.

That’s why I’ve signed the e-petition and why I’ll be emailing my MP asking them to support the change. I encourage you to do the same.

For years, Liberal Youth has succeeded against all odds. To reach its potential it needs more funding, not less.

I first got involved in Liberal Youth almost three years ago at the age of 16. The Liberal Youth I saw then didn’t seem like a pleasant place to be at the time, so I left and haven’t come back until recently. The Liberal Youth I see now is one I’m proud of. It is a much improvement on old, with a team who do their best to stick together and push hard for the voices of young people to be heard in an understandably daunting political party in government. While times may have changed during my absence from Liberal Youth, one thing is still glaringly obvious.

The lack of support from the Liberal Democrat party still holds us back. Not LD members in general of course, they’re as supportive as ever, but the people who make decisions on operational matters. For example as a young person when I join the Liberal Democrats, in my membership pack I should have received as much information as could possibly be needed about Liberal Youth. I didn’t. As a Liberal Youth member, national conferences and events should be obvious through a link on the main party’s website and advertised through the national Lib Dem mailing list. They aren’t. Those who represent my interests as a Liberal Youth member should be given enough resources to do just that. They aren’t.

Consistently Liberal Youth has lacked enough finance, staff and support just to function as an organisation, let alone to develop.

I’ve been a part of the student movement for over two years during my break from Liberal Youth, and I’ve learned a hell of a lot along the way. I developed a representative organisation up from nothing and then to one of the most active of its kind. And from my experience, Liberal Youth has barriers in its way that it needs both financial support and guidance from Liberal Democrats far and wide to overcome – a new and improved constitution (including a re-shaping of executive positions), a larger network of active members and more staff support are some examples.

Liberal Youth in my opinion is the best youth wing on offer of any political party. But with more financial support it could be so much better.

So when I saw Tom Wood’s (Chair of Liberal Youth) article in Lib Dem Voice saying that the English Council were pulling finance, I was outraged. But after I had calmed down and had a beer, I just felt let down.

Three years ago, I stopped being an active Liberal Youth member and turned my attention instead to the student movement and local politics as a Liberal Democrat member. Doing so changed my life for the better, but now I want to get back involved in Liberal Youth – to continue developing as a person and help to represent a party I care deeply about. But I’m not the only one – there are countless others. The proposed withdrawal of funding is putting that at risk.

If Liberal Youth doesn’t have the finances to stay afloat, it won’t represent the young members of our party. And if the young members of our party aren’t represented, supported and encouraged to flourish, there’s no future for Liberal Democrats.

Part of English Council? Demand funding for Liberal Youth to remain.

At a time of economic crisis, doubling the pupil premium is not the answer.

Watching all the jazzy Liberal Democrat conference coverage over the past few days, I have been feeling rather jealous as I sit at home applying to every education support job under the sun. Vince Cable and Tim Farron both gave stunning speeches that expressed the most pressing problems in our party. Yet, as I take a break from my depressing unemployment and watch a Q&A session on social mobility, I rapidly become aware of another.

Anyone who knows me appreciates that education is my area. I stood up against MPs wishing to break their pledge with students on tuition fees, supported the introduction of the pupil premium and preferred a reformed Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) than a whole new discretionary scheme. On the last point in particular you can understand my concern when the doubling of the pupil premium was announced. This extra money set to be invested is more than enough money to fund a pound-for-pound replacement for EMA that the Department for Education said wasn’t available.

I believe that in a time of economic crisis, we should use what money we have to invest across the entire education sector, rather than simply investing in early years and primary schools. Yet when I made this reference on Twitter I faced an onslaught of angry Lib Dems who spoke to me as if I had broken my responsibility as a party member, tearing away from the party line like an irate toddler. But if they’d taken time to take note of the facts, they would have seen a huge drop in enrolment figures for over 100 FE colleges and sixth form centres, for the 2011/12 academic year. (http://www.feweek.co.uk/index.php/2011/09/15/where-are-the-16-18-year-olds/)

Many college principals and senior education figures say this is due to EMA’s abolition, and
uncertainty amongst college and prospective students about its replacement.

Less students are continuing in post-16 education, heading out to working life instead. And there just isn’t the jobs to encompass them all, thus unemployment increases, benefit seekers rise and we end up in a downward spiral.

In the Q&A session on social mobility, the panel said that the Liberal Democrats owned the agenda. Simon Hughes brandished his business card with the Lib Dem constitution preamble on the back, pointing out the ‘no-one shall be enslaved by poverty’ phrase, and everybody applauded with glee. Yet we are making decisions today that are pricing people out of education. Students from lower-income families aren’t being supported to stay in Further Education, so can’t be ‘encouraged’ onto Higher Education.

It’s a simple equation – if you can’t afford FE then HE just is not a possibility. And isn’t that a social mobility issue?

The indications of a significant decline in the number of 16 – 18 year olds enrolling on courses suggest that Further Education just isn’t filling young people with confidence.

Recently FE Week published survey results detailing that the number of 16 – 18 year olds enrolling at over 100 FE colleges and sixth forms had dropped severely by 20,319 compared with target figures.

Such a large drop in enrolment figures for the 2011/12 academic year compared with target figures doesn’t happen very often, so it’s clear the game has changed.

Further Education just isn’t filling students with confidence. No wonder. With a poorly timed u-turn on Education Maintenance Allowance’s (EMA) replacement and other concerns to match, young people wishing to continue education through FE are facing constant struggles.

One particular difficulty is due to the Department for Education not giving colleges enough time or guidance in order to detail out how they’d each distribute EMA’s replacement (a discretionary pot of money) to students. This meant that enrolling students were applying to FE (and probably still are) without a definitive answer of whether they’ll receive financial support, thus putting off many prospective students from even applying in the first place.

It’s not just EMA’s abolition that’s having an impact on the number of students enrolling. Dick Palmer, Principal of City College Norwich, said that there could be a number of reasons for any shortfall in 16 – 18 enrolment figures, including financial pressure on schools to retain sixth formers (probably why some colleges are looking to remove or downsize their A Level courses), worries over the loss of post-16 transport subsidies and growth in local conversions of schools into academies.

Whatever the reasons, one thing is for certain: the constant shake-ups in Further Education thanks to government uncertainty and lack of planning are causing great difficulty. For once this isn’t down to Liberal Democrats, but Conservative Michael Gove and his lethargic department. Yet as we’ve seen already in the coalition, blame is often directed towards their yellow partners. The Lib Dems are already in hot water with young people over the tuition fees vote and can’t afford to be the party that hates students.

The junior partners must face the issues arising from the coalition’s Further Education policies: some young people just aren’t being given the confidence or support to continue in post 16 education. If the Lib Dems are to win back some of the lost support, FE is the place to start.

You can find the FE week article at http://www.feweek.co.uk/index.php/2011/09/15/where-are-the-16-18-year-olds/

You can find Dick Palmer on Twitter via @dickpalmerccn

The First President’s Farewell

The last two years certainly have been emotional. Even as I write this – a week before I leave office as president of Amersham & Wycombe College Students’ Union – I struggle to hold back the tears. But I’m determined to put down my experiences of not just the student movement, but of the college that housed the best times of my life.

Just before I enrolled on A Levels at Amersham & Wycombe College, I’d had some extremely difficult times. Not only did I have a bunch of idiotic & unreliable friends, but problems at home had meant that my growth into adulthood was full of anguish.

I had obtained some decent GCSEs at a well-respected grammar school, but I felt like they’d hardly been the result of hard-work. Not only did I need more responsibility over my own learning, but my life had to change. And change it did.

Within 4 months of the start of my college course I’d got frustrated at the lack of extra-curricular activities and set up a student football team, making some friends-for-life in the process. With problems at home beginning to fizzle out I was now taking part in education with a smile on my face, for the first time in around a decade. But it was the summer of 2009 that will go down as possibly the biggest turning point in my life.

Setting up a Students’ Union with some mates in that summer didn’t seem at the time like a life-changing event (I certainly recall only going for the free food!) but it could not have been more powerful.

Throughout its formation process, I began to realise that a Students’ Union was actually something really worthwhile, something I wanted to be involved in.

So I stood for Presidency in a heavily contested election and won by 150 votes.

That election changed everything for me. Suddenly I was giving speeches, taking part in radio & newspaper interviews – campaigning on behalf of thousands of Further Education students. I was still studying A Levels, but now I was working solidly until 11pm every night to carry the responsibility that had been put so heavily upon my shoulders.

The problems I’d had at home could not have been sorted out at a better time – I was being supported with every step I took. I won for students time and time again, determined to make college enjoyable for those who, like me a few years back, turned up to lessons to get away from troubles in their personal lives.

My studies faltered as a result of dealing with all the responsibility and, although that bothered my tutors, it didn’t bother me.

As time progressed I began to realise that supporting young people was what I actually wanted to do career-wise, not go off to university and earn a degree I had no interest in obtaining. I no longer wanted education to be a part of my life; I wanted it to be my life.

At the end of the 2009/10 academic year I successfully campaigned for a sabbatical president (full time and paid), and won that election too – uncontested this time. And now, a year on, I write this blog having changed Amersham & Wycombe College dramatically for its students.

A summary of the past two years:

- A dramatic shift in the SU’s profile, with more and more students knowing who we are, what we do and why we exist.
- Had visits from senior members of the National Union of Students – something which is very uncommon at colleges.
- Represented students from every part of the college, with ESOL students, HE in FE and those on apprenticeships being the most recent to get involved.
- Built up a fantastic executive team, a network of outstanding student representatives and a Student Parliament to die for.
- Achieved a 95% campaigning success rate on local student issues.
- Linked up with nearby schools in the area for the Young Sports Ambassadors Partnership, engaging more A&W College students than ever with sport.
- High profile events, with Freshers Fair, RAG week and Love Music Hate Homophobia be-ing the most popular
- Raised thousands of pounds for charity
- Helped set up volunteering opportunities for young people across the Amersham & Chesham area.
- Got national recognition for my work on teaching and learning and the mature way in which I campaign for the rights of students – getting a mention in the House of Commons in the process
- Amersham & Wycombe College has shortlisted for the Learning Skills & Improvement Service ‘Most Improved Provider’ award for two years running – in relation to how well it listens to students. This year, we got runner-up in this award.
- The college’s Ofsted grade for ‘user engagement’ has also increased from 3 to 2.

As well as all this, I’ve been looked to for advice from all corners of the student movement, stood for two big elections on a national scale and given speeches to thousands of people.

The past couple of years have been incredibly tough on me though – definitely the most stressful period of my life so far, so much so that I’m losing my hair (although my Dad does insist it’s hereditary)!

But, I can say without doubt that they’ve also been the very best couple of years.

The Students’ Union I built up from nothing is now arguably one of the very best in the UK – a fete achieved in just under 2 years. We’ve been recognised nationally and received praise from every corner of the FE sector.

I’ve been extremely proud to represent students at Amersham & Wycombe College and to better their learning experiences – from whatever course, whatever background, whatever age.

Being AWSU President has completely turned my life around. Not only has my CV improved beyond belief, but my personality has changed too.

I could never have imagined in 2009 that I’d stand for an election in the National Union of Students, nor that my election speech at National Conference would win me so many plaudits. I may not have won, but to have been one of just 3 candidates on offer to represent 4.85 million Further Education students was an absolute honour. 2 years ago, just speaking in front of a classroom gave me nightmares, let alone 1,000 delegates!

I will never ever forget the people who encouraged me to stand for that election, and indeed those who supported me through it.

My passion for the student movement and for Further Education will always remain strong. I have truly admired everyone I’ve met during the past two years. From everyday students working every spare hour they have to pay for their education, to the staff in colleges who do so much for students but rarely get the credit, through to SU officers in FE up and down the land (don’t forget the nations!) who often get ignored due to the HE-centric attitude so engrained in our society.

My time on the Further Education Committee in the National Union of Students is coming to an end in October too but, having seen the vast number of dedicated FE Students’ Unions over the past year, I know that the student movement needs this old codger to stop hogging a spot on the best committee in NUS!

Putting the #FEparty aside, many at Amersham & Wycombe College have called my departure as president ‘the end of an era’, but I know that couldn’t be further from the truth. I was honoured this year to see candidates wanting to replace me who all would have been bloody brilliant at the job, and I admire each of them. Mike Sutton, SU President elect, will have a tough job filling in my shoes, but with time and effort he will go on to achieve far greater heights.

As for me, my future lies in Further Education and the student movement. It’s been my fate as soon as I joined Amersham & Wycombe College. And it’s a fate I intend on making the most of.

After the past 2 brilliant, wonderful years, I think it’s important to look back at my old life – a troubled home life and ‘friends’ who mocked the ‘downgrading’ from a grammar school to a college ‘full of chavs’ – and stick up two fingers with a smile.

Life is good.

C

Ofsted loves AWSU. Fact.

User Engagement Grade – 2

Learners rightly value the importance the college attaches to their views on their experience at the college and the college’s responsiveness in acting on them. The strategy to involve learners in decision making is highly effective. Inspectors found numerous instances of how learners’ views had been sought and acted upon to plan, manage and improve the provision, such as in the design of the learning resources centre. A well-developed Student Union, led by a sabbatical president, plays a key role in the success of the learner involvement strategy.

- A&W College Ofsted Report, May 2011