Overall, whilst the indicators adequately set out what HEPs do to meet the Chapter Expectation, they are a relatively basic set of indicators that demonstrate little aspiration. In particular HEPs might be asked to demonstrate the impact of their support and around developing approaches that result in personalised, integrated support for students. They might also take a more balanced perspective on support for example – from the perspective of academic staff and students, as well as from senior management and student services perspectives. 30. Are any additional Indicators needed? If so, please give details. 31. Do you agree with the order in which the Indicators have been arranged? 32. Please use this space for any further comments on the Chapter. There is NO word limit for this question. In the introductory section student achievement’, the link between the quality of partnership and ‘Supporting student experience of support is not adequately explained and its use may not be appropriate in this context. The overall expectation and rationale is welcomed a focus on principles of integration and holistic, seamless – support and a recognition of the need for personalisation. However, some of the indicators seem to undermine this. For example, by focusing on individual staff responsibility for overseeing and delivering support, employability etc the code encourages a culture where these may be seen as specific ‘silo’ responsibilities for some staff only. This could also potentially lead to students having difficulty accessing support as some staff perceive it as my responsibility’. ‘not Whilst there is a great deal of evidence used to underpin many of the indicators, some seem better informed by evidence than others. For example, it is questionable whether there is a sound evidence base to assert that generic raising’ activity of support increases use by all students. The limited available evidence ‘awareness suggests that students tend to seek awareness of support services as and when they need them. In this way much of the chapter seems to be written from the perspective of student services professionals and it would benefit from drawing on a focus on the experience of support from the student perspective. Such a focus might have led to different, more student focussed, indicators. Generally, from an accessibility perspective, as some parts of the Chapter that would benefit from being re-written in plain English.
Overall, whilst the indicators adequately set out what HEPs do to meet the Chapter Expectation, they are a relatively basic set of indicators that demonstrate little aspiration. In particular HEPs might be asked to demonstrate the impact of their support and around developing approaches that result in personalised, integrated support for students. They might also take a more balanced perspective on support – for example from the perspective of academic staff and students, as well as from senior management and student services perspectives. 30. Are any additional Indicators needed? If so, please give details. 31. Do you agree with the order in which the Indicators have been arranged? 32. Please use this space for any further comments on the Chapter. There is NO word limit for this question. In the introductory section ‘Supporting student achievement’, the link between the quality of partnership and student experience of support is not adequately explained and its use may not be appropriate in this context. The overall expectation and rationale is welcomed – a focus on principles of integration and holistic, seamless support and a recognition of the need for personalisation. However, some of the indicators seem to undermine this. For example, by focusing on individual staff responsibility for overseeing and delivering support, employability etc the code encourages a ‘silo’ culture where these may be seen as specific responsibilities for some staff only. This could also potentially lead to students having difficulty accessing support as some staff perceive it as ‘not my responsibility’. Whilst there is a great deal of evidence used to underpin many of the indicators, some seem better informed by evidence than others. For example, it is questionable whether there is a sound evidence base to assert that generic ‘awareness raising’ activity of support increases use by all students. The limited available evidence suggests that students tend to seek awareness of support services as and when they need them. In this way much of the chapter seems to be written from the perspective of student services professionals and it would benefit from drawing on a focus on the experience of support from the student perspective. Such a focus might have led to different, more student focussed, indicators. Generally, from an accessibility perspective, as some parts of the Chapter that would benefit from being re-written in plain English.