A. Equity objectives at Charles Sturt University (CSU) - integrated into Mission and planning Charles Sturt University has made major contributions to providing higher education to students from diverse backgrounds, through its Mission to provide high quality university education to students in regional areas. Central to the achievement of this Mission is CSU’s role as a provider of Distance Education (DE), and this mode of education is invaluable in providing access to students who are isolated from university campuses whether through geography, disability or economic circumstances. The high value which CSU places on the diversity of its students is very apparent in the variety of the modes of admissions to CSU courses.

The CSU Mission emphasises the importance of :

• providing a variety of learning environments to meet the different needs of students drawn from diverse educational, social, ethnic and economic backgrounds;
• being committed to open learning through access, articulation and student support programs.

To emphasise its commitment to the principles of equity and especially to the rural areas which it serves, the 1996 Statement of Values (which accompanies the Mission Statement) includes the statements that:

• CSU is committed to the pursuit of social justice and the provision of equity of access and opportunity; and
• CSU recognises the primary importance of its students, local communities, and the other client groups it seeks to serve.

The success of Charles Sturt University in providing accessible higher education to students from non-traditional backgrounds was recognised in 1997 by the award of University of the Year - University for the First Generation.

In keeping with the national equity goal as expressed in Equality, Diversity and Excellence (HEC/NBEET 1996: xiii), the CSU equity goal emphasises the positive opportunities which arise from the challenge of embracing the diversity of the student population:

General CSU Equity Objective
The general aim of the Student Equity Committee (SEC), through the Student Equity Officers and other staff, will be to encourage the faculties and divisions of CSU to explore ways by which the major teaching, research and community service functions of CSU can make the university accessible and responsive to members of disadvantaged groups. The SEC will promote the integration of the equity program into mainstream planning, management and academic practice.

An important aspect of the equity objective will be to raise the University’s awareness of the significance of its achievements in providing higher education for disadvantaged groups. The enthusiasm of staff for and success in the University of the Year process have played an important part in enhancing the legitimacy of "equity" at all levels within CSU.

B. Strategies and performance

While CSU prides itself on being a university for the first generation, and on the integration of equity policies into the broad range of university activities, there are specific initiatives to which Equity staff provide support either in terms of funding, time or both. It is these strategies which are described below.

1. PRIORITY ONE – STUDENTS FROM RURAL AND ISOLATED AREAS

Although the participation ratios for both these groups is high at CSU – just under 2.0 – we are keen to improve the access, particularly of isolated students. Nationally, students from isolated areas rank with low SES and students with disabilities in having the lowest participation rates in higher education (only 0.393 for isolated students in 1997). The access figure for rural students has been steadily declining at CSU, from 53% in 1992 to 41.86% in 1998. This reflects not an absolute decline in the number of students from rural areas (the reverse is true), but a growth in the numbers of DE students who live in metropolitan areas. However, it is of concern that rural and isolated students have not shared in the growth of a regional university such as CSU to the same extent as have urban students. The following table illustrates the growth in numbers of some equity groups at CSU over the past four years (figures from DEETYAPAC participation tables):

The access and participation indicators for isolated students in 1998 have reversed the previous downward trend, and we aim to continue to improve this.

The success and retention of rural students remains better than 1, but for isolated students it is just below 1. We will investigate the reasons for this and improve success and retention by increasing communication with DE students, as this is the popular mode of study for isolated students (67% of isolated students at CSU in 1996 were studying by DE). Performance should match or exceed national figures.

The major equity project in 1998 is a Peer Mentoring Pilot Project for DE students. It is planned that this will provide resources and a model for the widespread use of peer mentors, especially in courses which have a high level of attrition, and especially for rural and isolated students.

i. Improve awareness and access among rural and isolated people of variety of courses and pathways to higher education:

• Targeted promotions at low retention high schools and in areas which have a low transfer rate to higher education.
• Continue and expand TAFE and other Category B Outreach programs, e.g. promotions at rural venues such as agricultural shows and field days.
• Workshops for school careers teachers.
• Team visits to isolated areas, such as the 1998 visit to Broken Hill by student recruitment, careers adviser, learning skills and equity officers.

ii. Improve success and retention of rural and especially isolated students, by improving support and changing the nature of the learning environment which may discourage or exclude students from rural and isolated areas:

• Promote peer mentoring programs especially for DE students.
• Improve support services for DE students e.g. by computer based learning skills project in Division of Student Services.
• Produce simple brochure with advice for students on administrative alternatives to withdrawal/failure.
• Develop academic strategies to reduce withdrawal rates and improve pass rates for DE students.
• Exit survey of students from isolated areas to identify optimal means of support.
• Continuation of First Year Experience project, e.g. finalise examination of learning environment and identify possible changes to curriculum, teaching or assessment practices which discourage or discriminate against students from rural backgrounds.

2. PRIORITY ONE – STUDENTS FROM LOW SES AREAS

The performance indicators for the two age groups of SES show that the younger group is reasonably well represented at CSU, with an access figure of 24.16 in 1998 and a participation ratio of 1.69. The success and retention for this group is consistently slightly greater than 1, and better than the national average. Perhaps the most telling figure is the participation ratio for the low SES groupings: 1.69 for under 25s and 0.85 for over 25s. The comparable national figures are 0.39 and 0.32 (1997), which shows to what extent CSU differs from the national pattern, in having a much larger proportion of students from low SES areas as compared to those from high SES areas.

However, the older age group is less well represented than the young one (access hovering just below 20%, and participation below 0.90). We assume that this age-related pattern means that the less well-off areas, such as rural areas or those with a large number of unemployed, are less likely to contribute mature age distance education students. We hope therefore that the efforts aimed at improving access for isolated and rural students will also improve access for those from low SES areas, since there is a high correlation between the two factors of rurality and low SES. However, there is an as-yet unanswered question about the patterns of enrolment of low SES students, perhaps related to the differences in age: low SES students study by DE mode less than the general CSU student population (53% compared to 59%). Unfortunately our university data does not analyse enrolment mode by age group of low SES.

Success and retention for both low SES age groups are close to 1.0, and therefore slightly above the national average.

i. Improve awareness of the opportunities for higher education by students from low SES backgrounds, especially among non school leavers:

• Establish information programs on opportunities in higher education directed at low SES students within the catchment area, eg through TAFEs, CES, Skillshare, correctional institutions and other networks.
• Appointment of student recruitment officer specifically for distance education students especially mature age.

ii. Increase access by students of low SES:

• Preference in on-campus residential places.
• Merit-based equity scholarships: monitoring, support of students and evaluation.
• Participate in the development of funded maths and enabling courses.

iii. Maintain success and retention rates of low SES students:

• Awareness raising among faculties and divisions of needs of students, especially through activities of Division of Student Services and Centre for Enhancement of Learning & Teaching.
• Monitor ancillary costs for students (e.g. those involved in compulsory residential schools; the compulsory ownership of computers capable of on-line access; the transfer of costs to students e.g. by placing subjects on-line) and bring these to the attention of decision-makers within CSU.

3. PRIORITY ONE – STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

The reporting of numbers for this category of students continues to be a problem for CSU. While the performance indicator, based on responses to the question/s on the enrolment form, showed a very low level of access and participation in 1996 and 1997, the 1998 figures show an improvement and are much closer to the numbers of students receiving support on each of the three major campuses. The levels of success and retention at CSU are below the national levels, and we will continue our efforts to match these.

i. To improve reporting of students with disabilities:

• Promotion of self-identification by students with disabilities at the time of enrolment .

ii. Improve access for students with disabilities:

• Access audit of each campus: access maps, priorities for improvement of access in strategic areas on each campus.
• To encourage prospective students to participate in preparatory or enabling programs where appropriate.

iii. To ensure support programs of the highest achievable standard for all students with disabilities at CSU:

• Try to ensure that adequate human, financial and physical resources are allocated annually by the university to meet the costs of supporting students with special needs.
• Development of functioning of Disability Advisory Group.
• Continue to push for development of Disability Action Plan.
• Develop guidelines for parity of service to both internal and external students with disabilities across the CSU campuses.
• Continue to work with CELT and Staff Development for inclusion of disability awareness training in relevant staff development programs e.g. induction, teaching colloquia, faculty workshops.

4. PRIORITY TWO – WOMEN IN NON TRADITIONAL AREAS (NTA) AND POSTGRADUATE COURSES

The only Field of Study which consistently has enrolments of women below 40% is that of Science 09. However, there have been increases in the numbers of women commencing in science courses, so that the participation rate is consistently trending upwards.

As with all courses, the success and retention of women is better than 1 in the NTA fields of study. Numbers are also improving in postgraduate research areas, although here the figures are possibly not reliable due to the small overall numbers participating in Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) at CSU. It is pleasing to note that by far the best HDR:Undergraduate ratio is in science (1.413 in 1998, representing 28 women).

1. Increase the numbers of women studying science especially at postgraduate level:

• Support Equity Sub-committees in faculty.
• Encourage female staff especially those involved in Information Technology to lead faculty student recruitment activities.
• Investigate joint funding of equity scholarships in IT courses.

5. STUDENTS FROM NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUNDS (NESB)

NOTE: This group is not a priority for CSU, due to the low numbers of NESB people in the Catchment Area.

It is difficult to comment on the meaning of the indicators relating to this group, as they are based on such small numbers. Of even more concern than the low access and participation figures have been the low retention rates, the lowest for any equity groupings, and the trend from 1992 which had been steadily downwards (from 0.902 in 1992 to 0.767 in 1997). This year, however, there has been a slight improvement in the success and retention indicators, though they are still far below the national averages. Perhaps the difficulty which CSU has in attracting non-English speaking students away from their homes in the city is illustrated by our experience with the Merit Based Equity Scholarships: three which were offered to NESB students in Sydney in 1998 were not taken up, and the students or their families explained that this was because they did not want to leave the support of their family.

Many of the general strategies which have been developed for the enhancement of diversity and the support of students within CSU will have an impact on this category, as well as on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. These strategies are contained within the CSU Ethnic Affairs Priority Statement, developed in collaboration with EEO. In 1998 the following initiatives have been put in place:

• Extend staff training in cross-cultural communication, for both general and academic staff.
• Develop academic support: ESL programs and tutorial support where appropriate
• Develop cultural awareness workshops to be held during orientation week.
• Workshops on teaching to a diversity of students, using case studies involving NESB students, students with a disability, etc, under the auspices of the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.

Objectives and strategies

i. To enhance the diversity of environment and curriculum at CSU

• Continue to participate in workshops on teaching to a diversity of students
• Provide support to faculty workshops on student diversity
• Support and encourage the development of inclusive curricula by providing resources for academic staff development activities.

C. Report on Merit-based Equity Scholarships (MBES)

i. Selection procedures

The university retained the same selection procedures and criteria in 1998 as for 1997, viz.:

• all recipients to demonstrate financial hardship (as a measure of individual low SES) by eligibility for full Austudy or Abstudy, or a high rate of some form of means tested social security payment.
• Within these constraints, the awards were made on merit as demonstrated by either high TER or high levels of achievement at some other study such as TAFE.
• Extra consideration was given to candidates who were either students with a disability, or Aborigines or Torres Strait Islanders.

In a move designed to give benefits to all parties (enhanced status and publicity; an increase in the number of scholarships which could be offered), the MBES scholarships were in 1998 combined with those offered by the CSU Foundation. This meant that MBES scholarships were each given the name of a Governor of the CSU Foundation, in the format "Governor X Commonwealth Equity Scholarship" ; and certificates were presented at the Foundation Presentation Ceremonies.

ii. Publicising the scholarships

A section on the scholarships was included in the CSU entry in the UAC/VTAC guides; a flier was sent out in the CSU pack which goes to all high schools, TAFEs etc in NSW; and information about the scholarships is also part of the normal advertising activities of the Prospective Student Advisers at schools and careers markets. In 1998 a total of 160 applications were received, of which 48 resulted in offers and acceptances.

The distribution of TERs of award winners was similar in 1998 to 1997, and the cut-off remained around 75. Given the overall excellent results achieved by students in 1997, a TER of 75 certainly seems to be high enough to ensure very good university results.

iii. Equity group membership

All the scholarship winners had made a case for academic merit plus financial hardship. There was also a good representation from students with a rural postcode, but only 1 came from an isolated postcode (Broken Hill). As in 1997, the majority of recipients (37 of the 48) are women. This imbalance is much more marked in the TER group (30 women, 6 men). All scholarship holders have produced evidence of low SES, in the form of eligibility for Austudy in this or the previous year, or eligibility for payments from Centrelink/DSS.

In addition, the other Equity categories are represented as follows (1997 in brackets):

D. Contact Officers

Back  -  Return to Contents  -  Next