New student contract to make lectures compulsory
The contract has been criticised for its vague wording
Non-attendance at lectures could land students in court if colleges implement a new ‘student contract’, under proposals seen by The Oxford Student. All future Oxford students may have to sign a legallybinding contract which could make attendance at tutorials, classes and lectures compulsory and force them to subscribe to accommodation agreements and other financial clauses.
They will also have to agree to the jurisdiction of the legal system over the agreement, enabling the university or college to take any student to court if they are deemed to have breached the contract. Despite these potential legal tangles, the contract has been approved by a university-wide body, the Conference of Colleges. This has been done without any consultation of student representatives.
If passed by colleges, the contract, drawn up by a sub-committee of the Conference, will be rushed into place in time to be signed by all studentsmatriculating in Michaelmas Term this year. The Oxford Student understands that legal concerns over the wording of the contract were brought up in the committees of the Conference of the Colleges whilst the terms of the contract were being debated.
A member of the law faculty, who wished to remain anonymous, said that he felt there was potential for litigation from students forced to sign the contract, due to the inordinate powers granted to colleges. “It’s not clear because it has not yet been tested in court, but a sizeable body of opinion would argue that the courts might take an interest in these terms being imposed upon students. There could be a future issue with litigation from students... they come off so weak in this contract,” he said. He emphasised that there had been a problem with presentation of the contract to students, but added: “there’s a real difficulty in tidying this up in writing...I’m not sure whether the EU would let the terms be set down in this way.” However, Dame Fiona Caldicott, chair of last year’s Conference of the Colleges and Principal of Somerville, said that it was unlikely colleges would refer cases to the courts.
Instead, sources from within the Conference claim that the contracts will only codify measures that are already in place, but JCR presidents have reacted angrily. One told The Oxford Student, “We can understand the colleges wanting students to sign an agreement, but this threat to use the legal system to enforce these contracts smacks of heavy-handedness and unnecessary intimidation.
JCR presidents and Student Union President Emma Norris have described their anger over the contracts, criticising them for being overly vague and for their lack of student input. In a section entitled ‘Your Undertakings’, the contract states, “You undertake to pursue such studies as are required of you by any tutor... or other qualified person assigned by the college to teach you.” This includes carrying out practicals, the completion of written work, attending tutorials, classes and lectures, and sitting university and college exams.
The final clause of the contract states that, by signing the contract, both the students and the college will submit to the English courts’ jurisdiction, should any problems arise from the contract or in connection to it. This means that students who fail to perform the academic duties specified in the contract, break college rules or fail to pay their fees could face prosecution for breach of contract.
The contract was presented to the Conference of Colleges by the Principal of St Hugh’s, Andrew Dilnot, in fifth week of Michaelmas term last year. There was no consultation with current OUSU and JCR officers over the content and wording of the document. As a result of students’ objections to the document, several college Governing Bodies have decided to postpone discussion of the contract until OUSU has had time to consult their legal advisors.
Norris and the JCR Presidents have objected to the vague wording of the contract, which states, ‘The college will make such teaching provision for undergraduate students...as it reasonably decides is necessary. Teaching may include tutorials, classes and seminars.’ Norris said, “The contract has no minimum level of provision for teaching or accommodation, and no commitment to discussing any serious changes to teaching or courses with students.
Michael Scholar, current Chairman of the Conference of Colleges, said, “The intention was to set down in an orderly way a contract which already existed informally. There has been some debate about the contract, but I would describe the debate as technical • motivated by a desire to get the contract right and accurate. “There is bound to be some generality about such a contract; I would not myself describe it as vagueness.
One of the major problems is the cross-collegiate nature of the contract. Because colleges often offer different facilities, the contract does not specify any minimum standard of provision by the college. But whilst no concrete standards are set by the colleges for tuition, libraries and IT facilities, accommodation and meals, the contract binds students to the rules set out in each college’s handbook.
One JCR president, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “The colleges haven’t bound themselves to anything. It’s completely imbalanced.” Caldicott disagreed with this, and said, “I’ve been involved in the project and supported it for four years and colleges sometimes have to change their arrangements. But there are a specific set of criteria required to reach final honours school and students have to meet these requirements.
One of the key concerns is that students were not consulted when the contract was drawn up, despite that fact that Norris was promised in November 2004 that any graduate and undergraduate contract would be shown to OUSU before being implemented. “This has not happened... No students or student representatives have been consulted over the ‘student’ contact; some colleges have discussed it on reserved agendas, where there is no student representation,” she said.
“The final document was agreed in a Conference of Colleges sub-committee that has no student representation. This is not acceptable on an issue that so clearly affects students.” However, Caldicott said that students had been consulted, albeit at least two years ago. “Students were certainly consulted... The contract has been discussed for about four years. I remember that in the first and second years there was student consultation.
Norris responded, “It may be the case that students were consulted on an initial document, but it is now 2006... In that time the contract will have been changed dramatically without any input from the people it affects the most.” Several colleges had planned to discuss the contract in their governing body meetings yesterday afternoon, but The Oxford Student understands that some removed it from the agenda to allow more time for student consultation.
The Conference is a University- wide body, and the heads of every college are entitled to a vote in proceedings. Although its proposals are technically voluntary, Martin Francis, Senior Tutor at Wolfson and member of Conference’s Standing Committee said: “The contract is a template, but it comes with a strong recommendation from Conference. We’re saying ‘here it is, and we think it’s a good idea’...
There is a general and fairly powerful feeling that colleges should follow each other.”
26th Jan 2006