Australian Catholic University a) Equity objectives Australian Catholic University’s equity objectives are:
The University’s Strategic Plan 1999-2008 links commitment to equity across to the mission statement. The Plan notes that in seeking to make a contribution to its local, national and international communities ACU needs to make a strong and visible commitment to access and equity and proposes that equity principles and practice must be mainstreamed in order to embed access and equity as core values within the ACU and its community. The Plan commits the University to placing a continuing high priority on the education of indigenous students and to broadening its achievements for other categories of equity students. b) Strategies and performance Target equity groups The University has identified from its performance outcomes that the low socio-economic status (SES), disability, and rural and isolated equity groups require improved access and participation rates. These are also the groups the University can logically expect to be encouraged to participate due to its geographical catchment area, and its essential nature as a Catholic institution. Although non-English speaking background (NESB) students do enrol in the University, the definition of NESB as being relatively recent arrivals to Australia means that Australian Catholic University is less likely than some other universities to attract high numbers of these students since many are from non-Christian backgrounds. Access, participation, retention and success rates for students from low socio-economic backgrounds have again been given the highest priority in this year’s Equity Plan, but students with disabilities have also been given a high priority, because of the very particular needs of these students. Most strategies in place however are aimed at improving these rates for all equity category students. The priority groups are as follows: Priority 1 Students from low socio-economic backgrounds Priority 2 Students with disabilities Priority 3 Students from rural and isolated backgrounds Priority 4 Students from non-English speaking backgrounds Priority 5 Women in non-traditional areas of study Detailed information on the University’s assessment and review processes, including a description of the structures in place for ensuring regular review and evaluation of equity strategies, was provided in the University’s Equity Plan 1998-2000. Therefore only a summary of the outcomes of a selection of strategies is given in this Report. Many of the initiatives launched in 1997 are now coming to fruition and after successful evaluations are being developed into programs embedded within the University’s structures and systems. For example, over the past 12 months, ACU has conducted a number of research projects in the equity and disability areas. These include a research program into the computer skills needs of equity category students, development of an outreach program for rural students with disabilities and the development of a range of learning support materials for students with a range of disabilities that impact on the learning process. These initiatives have now been mainstreamed after reviews of their effectiveness. For performance indicators for these programs see the latter part of this section. The University has further developed its staff development program in the areas of equity and disability and extensive programs have been held in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Faculties have also developed their own programs and have invited equity staff to conduct whole-day training sessions which all local members of the Faculty have attended. These have been particularly successful in raising awareness among academic staff of the needs of equity group students. Information targeted at equity group students is now included in Unit Handbooks and Course Evaluation materials as a result of this training. These activities are the result of regular review and evaluation of the training and information needs of staff, particularly teaching staff, as well as formal evaluations at the conclusion of each staff development activity. The University’s Disability Action Plan was launched publicly by the Vice-Chancellor in November 1997 and its implementation has begun. Priorities are being determined for each State and a number of initiatives are already underway. For example, faculties have prepared or are preparing their own action plans and have run staff development activities on equity and disability issues, and a comprehensive access audit is to be conducted at the Strathfield Campus in the latter part of the year. Evaluation and review processes and performance indicators for each strategy in the Disability Action Plan are described in detail in the Plan. Strategies for the 1998-2000 triennium Detailed descriptions of all new and existing equity strategies for each of the University’s equity objectives were provided in last year’s Equity Plan. These strategies are continuing, and a number of new strategies have been added, notably in the area of students with disabilities. Each of the new strategies is listed below with the key performance indicator used for its evaluation listed alongside, together with a listing of the major existing strategies which have had significant outcomes. Note that the following strategies are also intended to benefit Indigenous students.
Performance against performance indicators (retention and success) Overall there was little change in the retention (1998) and success (1997) rates of the designated groups. Of the total of 20 indicators for the five groups, 10 (50%) moved up, 8 (40%) moved down and 2 (10%) remained virtually unchanged. Eighty percent of the movements were in the range .01-.05. Performance indicators for students with a disability showed a consistent improvement; performance indicators for students from an isolated background showed a consistent decline. Students with a disability The apparent retention rate for 1998 is 0.854 (up 0.1 from 1997) and the ratio for retention compared to other students is 1.014 (up .09 from 1997). In 1997 the student progress rate (SPR) for students with a disability increased by .02 over the 1996 rate to 0.86 and the ratio SPR (Disability) : SPR (No Disability) increased by .04 to 0.95. NESB students The apparent retention rate for 1998 is 0.779 (up .01 from 1997) and the ratio for retention compared to other students is 0.924 (down .02 from 1997). In 1997 the student progress rate for NESB students increased against the rate for the previous year by .02 to 0.89 and the ratio SPR (NESB) : SPR (Non NESB) increased by .03 to 0.98. Rural students ACU continues to be disadvantaged by the methodologies used by DETYA to calculate the reference values for low SES and rural and isolated student group performance indicators. This was argued in detail in ACU’s last Equity Plan, and acknowledged by DEETYA, but no formal recognition of this has appeared in the recent assessments circulated by the Department. A further letter from the institution has been sent to highlight inconsistencies and irregularities in the Department’s recognition of the data we supply. The apparent retention rate for 1998 is 0.849 (up .03 from 1997) and the ratio for retention compared to other students is 1 009 (virtually unchanged from 1997). In 1997 the student progress rate for rural students decreased against the rate for the previous year by .01, to 0.93. Despite this the ratio SPR (Rural) to SPR (Non Rural) increased by .01 to 1.03. Isolated students The apparent retention rate for 1998 is 0.711 (down by .17 from 1997), and the ratio for retention compared to other students is 0.842 (down by .24 from 1997). In 1997 the student progress rate for isolated students decreased against the rate for 1996 by .05, to 0.86. The ratio SPR (Isolated) to SPR (Non-Isolated) also fell, by .04 to 0.95. Low SES The apparent retention rate for all low SES (Australian) for 1998 is 0.835 (up .02 from 1997) and the ratio for retention compared to other students is 0.991. For students under 25 this ratio is 1.021, and for students aged 25 or more it is 0.991. In 1997 the overall progress rate for low SES (Australian) students decreased against the rate for 1996 by .02 to 0.9. The variation in the rates for those under 25 and those over 25 was .01, the rate for those under 25 being 0.90. For those aged 25 or more it was 0.91. In 1997 the Ratio SPR (Low SES Australian) to Other than Low SES (Australian) was 1, a fall of .01 from the previous year. Women in non-traditional areas Australian Catholic University does not at present offer courses in areas deemed to be non-traditional areas for women. c) Selection procedures and outcomes for Merit-based Equity Scholarships, 1998 round The scholarships were publicised via the Prospective Student Officers, posters and the University’s web page. Information sheets and application forms were included in the enrolment packages of commencing students. The scholarships were not advertised in the press, the cost being prohibitive owing to the geographic spread of the University. The scholarships were awarded by the Access and Equity Committee. Applications were shortlisted, then ranked on the basis of membership of the low SES category, by extent of demonstrated financial disadvantage, and by membership of the other nominated categories of disadvantage. Membership of the low SES category was validated by the provision of certified copies of Austudy/Abstudy notices of assessment, or other advice as to level of government benefits received. The extent of educational disadvantage was to some extent deduced by reference to details supplied in relation to membership of the various categories, but applicants were also encouraged to supply further details of educational disadvantage experienced. No quotas were set for any categories. The breakdown by membership of equity category of successful applicants was as follows:
5 successful applicants met the criteria for one
category (low SES). d) Contact Officers Sr Rosemary Lewins, OP Elizabeth Anderson To be advised Note: Contact details for the Manager, Equity and Equal Opportunity and the Equity Officer will change from the beginning of 2000. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||