Final Report on Student-Staff Liaison Committee
Survey Results

The survey arose from issues raised at a meeting between the TLC and the Deputy Commandant and senior colleagues during 2000. In essence those concerns were that there appears to be no consistency between Schools in the matter of Student-Staff Liaison, and that such opportunities as students have to give feedback on teaching issues usually do not lead to any discernible change, leaving students with a sense that their comments and suggestions have sunk without trace.

The TLC is responding to these concerns by attempting to develop – in close consultation with the Schools – guidelines for the operation of Student-Staff Liaison Committees. To that end, the TLC distributed a survey form to Heads of Schools in December 2000 to discover current practices and opinions.

The survey reveals substantial grounds for the concerns raised by the military staff. Between the Schools there is an enormous range of practices, from those Schools which have no committees at all, to those which have lively committees which meet at least once per semester. Moreover, with one exception Schools make no attempt to report their committees’ deliberations to the student body, regarding this task as the responsibility of the student representatives on the committees.

Interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the only School which does report its committees’ deliberations (by posting minutes on a noticeboard) appears to have a high level of enthusiasm for the committees among both staff and students within the School. In a similar vein, another School, which develops its committee agenda through a survey of all students based on issues raised in previous meetings also appears to enjoy a reasonably high level of enthusiasm for the SSLC process. Both of the examples above suggest that a concern expressed by some respondents is well-founded: an effective SSLC process requires an investment of time by at least some members of the School.

Schools raised a number of possible objections to any significant change or expansion of SSLC activities. Apart from the possible reluctance of staff and students to give up their time to an activity which is neither teaching, learning, nor research, some were concerned that public reporting of committees’ deliberations would be inappropriate, as the committees often deal with grievances and complaints against the teaching of specific academics. Still others were concerned that more ‘formal’ processes would be counter-productive. This was a major concern for one school with no SSLC, but which has a variety of other mechanisms for discussion of teaching and learning issues between students and staff.

Despite these differences of view, the survey provides some useful indications of ways to strengthen SSLC process, and also identifies some possible pitfalls which any such strengthening must seek to avoid.

David Blaazer

(For UCTLC, October 2001.)

---

[Report accepted by Academic Board, 8 March 2002.]

---

‘Best-practice’ guidelines for Student-Staff Liaison Committees

(October 2001)

Background

These guidelines emerge from a survey of Schools’ operation of Staff-Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs) undertaken over summer 2000-2001, in response to issues raised at a meeting between the TLC and the Deputy Commandant and senior colleagues during 2000. The survey found a wide variety of practices. These guidelines are based on the practices in use in those Schools which reported most favourably on the liveliness and effectiveness of their SSLCs.

Proposed guidelines

1	Number and composition of SSLCs Most Schools should have two SSLCs: one for undergraduates and one for coursework postgraduates. Schools with very small numbers of coursework postgraduates should have a single SSLC for all students. There should be two student representatives from each of first, second and third years; one from fourth year, one from each General Education course, and (where there is no separate postgraduate SSLC) one postgraduate. Postgraduate SSLCs should be open to all coursework postgraduates. Distance education postgraduates should be invited to submit matters for consideration by the postgraduate SSLC to one of its academic staff members, or, where the School has only one SSLC, to its postgraduate representative. Nominations for student representatives should be called early in first semester, and elections (if necessary), conducted as promptly as possible. The call for nomination should be publicised in lectures. The term for student representatives should be one calendar year, or until the representative is no longer taking any of the School's courses. Replacement representatives (e.g. for second-semester GE courses) should be sought and appointed as required. Each school should nominate two staff members to convene each SSLC and attend its meetings. The staff members should have a term of not more than two years. The names and contact details of SSLC members should be posted on the School noticeboard and the School web site.
2	Frequency of meetings Each SSLC should meet at least once per semester.
3	Development of Agenda Student representatives should actively canvass issues for discussion at meetings among their constituencies. In doing so, they should take particular care to extend their consultations beyond their own circle of immediate acquaintances. The Agenda should automatically include a review of all courses currently being delivered or just concluded.
4	Publication of deliberations Minutes of meetings should be kept and forwarded to the Head of School. A summary report of the deliberations should be posted on the School noticeboard and the School web site. The summary report should not refer to grievances raised concerning individual members of staff. Student representatives should be informed that they have a responsibility to make their constituency aware of the SSLC’s deliberations, including by e-mail and appropriately placed notices. Deliberations concerning individual members of staff should not be broadcast, but should be reported privately to the students who raised the issues which gave rise to the deliberations. Such reporting may be undertaken either by student representatives or the Head of School (or nominee), as determined by the meeting.
5	Follow-up of matters raised in meetings Discussions in SSLC meetings should normally conclude with a decision on what action (or further deliberation) is to be taken and by whom. The School’s responses should be coordinated by the Head of School. Action should be reported to the next meeting and recorded in its minutes. Actions concerning individual members of staff may, at the Head of School’s discretion, be reported generically. A brief summary of SSLC activities should appear in each School’s Annual Report.

[On 8 March 2002, Academic Board recommended maintenance of SSLCs 'broadly in accordance with' these Guidelines, but for undergraduate students only.]