Student governors sidelined despite expanding role, report warns

Student governors are frequently marginalised on university governing boards, despite increasing efforts to include them in official decision-making structures, according to a new report.

The paper published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) argues that higher education risks “performing inclusion rather than practising it” unless boards reform their cultures, processes and expectations of student representatives.

Drawing on interviews with former student governors, students’ union chief executives, senior university leaders and board chairs, it finds a persistent gap between student representation and real influence in institutional oversight.

Student governors often encounter “invisible barriers” that limit their contribution, including opaque jargon, unwritten norms and exclusive boardroom cultures, the report says.

Development needs are frequently overlooked, leaving students underprepared for complex discussions on finance, strategy and risk, despite holding the same legal responsibilities as other governors.

At the same time, governing bodies remain “demographically narrow and unreflective of the student body”, reinforcing students’ sense of outsider status.

The report notes that student voice in governance has strong potential, with increasing opportunities for committee membership and structured engagement, but these openings do not consistently translate to influence.

Darcie Jones, a former students’ union officer and intern at Hepi and author of the report, said student representation too often stopped at symbolism.

“Student governors deserve more than a symbolic seat. They must be empowered with clarity, training and access so they can fully engage in decisions that shape their institutions. Without reform, boards risk performing inclusion rather than practising it,” she said.

The report highlights examples of good practice to show what meaningful engagement could achieve.

One case study points to Hartpury University, where the institution’s transition from a further education college to a college and a university in 2018 was driven by student governance.

A student governor, motivated by pride in the institution, argued for the creation of a “Hartpury degree” rather than continuing with awards validated by another university.

In a foreword to the report, Advance HE chief executive Alistair Jarvis writes that the value of student governors is well established.

“They provide unparalleled expertise in current student experience, ask questions that enhance board understanding in ways that strengthen governance effectiveness and bring perspectives grounded in contemporary student needs rather than historical assumptions,” he said.

Jarvis adds that boards are beginning to see greater diversity among student governors, “moving beyond students’ union presidents to include additional governors appointed, such as international students, postgraduates and mature students, reflecting the changing face of higher education itself”.

The report sets out a series of recommendations aimed at moving student governance beyond tokenism. These include adopting an accessible governance culture, with board papers written in plain language and briefings that explain complex processes and unwritten expectations.

It also calls for transparent recruitment processes for student governors, developed in collaboration with students’ unions, alongside clearer induction and aligned training.

Boards are urged to provide ongoing development and mentoring for all governors, including students, and to use frameworks such as the Governor Apprenticeship Programme to create measurable support.

On diversity, the report recommends that institutions set clear targets to broaden the demographic make-up of governing bodies, covering ethnicity, socio-economic background, disability and age.

It also suggests that universities explore remunerating governors to reduce financial barriers to participation and widen access to governance roles.