Aston Students' Union Response to the Student Engagement and Attendance Policy

Introduction

Aston Students' Union welcomes the University's intention to strengthen student support, improve student success outcomes, and ensure compliance with its regulatory obligations. We recognise that attendance and engagement data can play an important role in identifying students who may be experiencing difficulties and may require timely intervention. The Union is particularly supportive of the policy's stated commitment to a holistic and supportive approach, rather than one based solely on compliance and enforcement. However, while we support the overall objectives of the policy, we believe there are several areas where the proposed framework would benefit from further refinement to ensure that it remains proportionate, transparent, equitable, and genuinely student-centred in both its design and implementation.

From a regulatory and governance perspective, attendance policies must strike a careful balance between institutional compliance obligations and the rights, wellbeing, and diverse circumstances of students. In our view, some provisions within the policy risk creating ambiguity, disproportionate consequences, or unintended disadvantages for particular student groups. We therefore submit the following observations and recommendations for consideration.

The Relationship Between Attendance and the Engagement Consistency Score Requires Greater Clarity

The Union welcomes the University's decision to move beyond a purely attendance-based framework through the introduction of engagement monitoring and the Engagement Consistency Score (ECS). The policy recognises that student success, wellbeing, and belonging are influenced by a broader range of factors than attendance alone and seeks to adopt a more holistic approach to identifying and supporting students who may be at risk. 

However, while engagement monitoring forms a central part of the policy's stated objectives, the operational provisions and compliance requirements continue to place significant emphasis on physical attendance and the maintenance of a "consistent and visible presence" within the University's academic community. Attendance is defined and monitored through compulsory teaching sessions, supervision meetings, placements, and other in-person activities, while the relative role of wider engagement indicators within intervention and escalation processes is less clearly articulated.

The Union is concerned that students may not fully understand how attendance data, engagement data, and the Engagement Consistency Score interact in practice. It remains unclear what weight is assigned to each measure when determining whether intervention is required, whether a student may be considered at risk, or whether formal review processes may be initiated. This lack of transparency may create uncertainty for students and make it difficult for them to understand how their participation is being assessed.

Furthermore, there are many circumstances in which a student may demonstrate meaningful academic engagement despite periods of reduced physical attendance. Independent study, use of digital learning resources, assessment completion, dissertation activity, research work, engagement with support services, and other forms of participation may all indicate a student's continued commitment to their studies. A framework that does not clearly recognise these forms of engagement may inadvertently disadvantage disabled students, students with long-term health conditions, carers, mature students, commuter students, and those balancing study alongside employment or family responsibilities.

The Union therefore recommends that the University provide greater transparency regarding the operation of the Engagement Consistency Score, including the factors that contribute to it, the relative weighting of attendance and engagement measures, and the circumstances in which alternative evidence of engagement may be considered. This would strengthen confidence in the fairness, consistency, and student-centred nature of the policy while remaining aligned with its stated objective of supporting student success.

The Definition of "Inconsistent Attendance" Is Insufficiently Precise

The policy permits intervention where a student's attendance is considered "inconsistent", even where overall attendance levels remain above prescribed thresholds. However, the term "inconsistent attendance" remains largely undefined and appears to be dependent upon discretionary interpretation.

The Union is concerned that this creates unnecessary uncertainty for students and increases the possibility of inconsistent application across Schools or departments. Policies that have the potential to affect continuation of study should be underpinned by objective criteria wherever reasonably possible. Students should be able to determine with confidence what behaviour may trigger intervention and what expectations are being placed upon them.

In our view, the University should provide measurable indicators and practical examples of what constitutes inconsistent attendance. Doing so would promote transparency, consistency of decision-making, and confidence in the fairness of the process.

The Withdrawal Framework Requires Stronger Safeguards for Students in Crisis

The Union would also welcome express confirmation that equality considerations, reasonable adjustments, and disability-related absences will be taken into account before any escalation or withdrawal decision is made. This would help ensure that the policy is applied consistently with the University's duties to disabled students and with its broader commitment to fair and inclusive practice.

The policy establishes a staged process culminating in potential withdrawal where students experience prolonged periods of non-attendance or disengagement. While support mechanisms are incorporated throughout the process, there remains a concern that some of the students most likely to disengage are also those least likely to respond to emails, complete forms, or engage proactively with institutional processes. 

Students experiencing serious mental ill-health, bereavement, domestic abuse, financial hardship, homelessness, caring responsibilities, or other significant personal crises frequently disengage from communication precisely because of those circumstances. In such cases, failure to respond should not automatically be interpreted as unwillingness to engage. Rather, it may be an indication that enhanced welfare support is required.

The Union would therefore welcome stronger safeguards before withdrawal, including explicit requirements that meaningful welfare-based interventions have been undertaken, multiple communication channels have been exhausted, and reasonable attempts have been made to understand the student's circumstances. Given the potentially serious consequences associated with withdrawal, including impacts on academic progression, financial support, accommodation, and immigration status, the threshold for withdrawal should be accompanied by robust and clearly articulated protections.

Concerns Regarding the Appeal Process and Evidential Requirements

The sections governing appeals warrant particular consideration. The policy requires students to provide direct and contemporaneous evidence corresponding precisely to the period of non-engagement and confirms that the effects of withdrawal may continue while the appeal is being considered.

While the University is entitled to require credible evidence, the Union is concerned that the evidential threshold may be unduly restrictive in practice. Many students experiencing significant mental health difficulties or other crises do not immediately seek medical or professional support. Retrospective evidence is often the primary means by which such students are subsequently able to explain the circumstances that led to disengagement.

The requirement for strictly contemporaneous evidence could therefore disadvantage some of the most vulnerable students within the institution. We would encourage the University to adopt a broader and more compassionate evidential approach that explicitly recognises retrospective medical evidence, professional assessments, support service records, and corroborative evidence from relevant third parties, where appropriate.

In addition, the Union would welcome greater clarity regarding appeal decision-making criteria to ensure consistency and confidence in the fairness of outcomes.

International Students Require Enhanced Assurances Regarding Support

The Union acknowledges the University's legal obligations in relation to Student Route visa sponsorship and UKVI reporting requirements. We recognise that compliance with immigration regulations is not discretionary. However, the policy contains significant references to visa reporting, sponsorship withdrawal, physical presence requirements, and compliance monitoring.

From a student experience perspective, there is a risk that international students may perceive attendance monitoring primarily as an immigration control mechanism rather than a student support framework. This perception may inadvertently discourage students from seeking help if they encounter difficulties.

We would therefore encourage the University to strengthen the language throughout the policy to ensure that support, advice, intervention, and re-engagement opportunities are clearly foregrounded. Where attendance concerns arise, international students should receive timely access to specialist advice and practical support before matters escalate toward immigration consequences.

Conclusion

Aston Students' Union supports the University's aim of identifying students who may require support, improve student success, and fulfil external regulatory obligations. Nevertheless, the Union believes the policy would be strengthened significantly through greater transparency, clearer definitions and thresholds, enhanced protections for vulnerable students, more flexible evidential requirements in appeals, stronger equality safeguards, and broader recognition of the diverse ways in which students engage with their education.

Fundamentally, attendance monitoring should operate as a mechanism for support rather than surveillance. Any framework that carries the possibility of withdrawal must be accompanied by clear procedural safeguards, transparency of decision-making, and a demonstrable commitment to fairness, proportionality, and student wellbeing. The Union welcomes continued engagement with the University on the implementation, communication, and monitoring of the policy to ensure that it achieves its intended aims while protecting the interests of all Aston students.

Abdul Momin Mian

President (Education & Quality)

10/08/2026