OBJECTIVES

QUT operates on a five year planning cycle and has developed top-level plans for teaching and learning, research, community service and resources, and support-level plans for equity, information technology, library resources, student support and capital management. The Vice-Chancellor’s Planning Guidelines also identify key issues for the University annually. Each faculty and division develops its own five-year plan on the basis of these documents. A draft 1999-2003 Equity Plan is attached (attachment two). As the plan was extensively reviewed in 1997, the key objectives have not changed although strategies and targets were reviewed on the basis of outcomes in 1998.

The eight university plans and 11 faculty/divisional plans include equity-related indicators. The Equity Section provides direct advice to faculties/divisions on issues they should pursue, and liaises with major plan coordinators to ensure congruence of equity targets across the University. An increasing number of faculties/divisions are responding to equity targets by, for example, developing local Equity Plans; including chairs of Equity Committees on their executives; allocating budgets to Equity Committees; and/or initiating equity grant schemes to pursue local equity projects. Some faculties, for example Law and Arts, have also appointed staff to implement their equity initiatives.

All plan coordinators and each faculty/division formally report on the outcomes of their plans and must respond to specific issues at review meetings with senior managers. The 1997 report against the University Equity Plan is attached (attachment three) for information. It reveals the amount of mainstreamed equity activity throughout the University. Equity objectives are therefore embedded and reported on at every level of planning.

The University Equity Plan contains a detailed catchment area analysis of 15-64 year olds living in the four relevant ABS divisions. The percentage of equity group people in the catchment area is the long-term target enrolment for students from that equity group. We analyse our performance and set performance indicators by reference to these long-term targets, to historical trend data (see attachment one), and to the impact of contextual factors, for example fees.

• Q-Step program (outreach, special entry, support) and Nexus program (year 8-10 outreach).
• Expand outreach to mature-age low-income people particularly in the northern corridor.
• Initiate direct financial sponsorship of marginally achieving low-income students to undertake bridging and preparatory programs and make special provision for students to be enrolled.
• Provide grants for Q-Step students from funds raised through the annual alumni-giving program which the University matches dollar for dollar.
• Supply book vouchers, photocopy cards etc to support students in various faculties.
• The School of Social Science special entry and orientation/bridging program for low-SES students and a faculty-based academic support program.
• Cooperative outreach programs with other universities and the schooling system.
• Small-scale computer loan scheme for low-SES students.
• Support and refine the Faculty of Law low socio-economic status scholarship.

• Expand the Q-Step and Nexus programs by the permanent addition of $75K for extra staff.
• Incorporate the SARUA program (action research program using high-school students in designated low socio-economic schools as researchers) into the Q-Step program.
• Double the number of university taster programs (winter schools) for high school students.
• Expand outreach to all low-SES schools, for example through mailouts/visits and Nexus activities, and provide Q-Step information to all Queensland high schools and Centrelink offices.
• Implement a Hardship Assistance Scheme by providing funds for the payment of student fees (ie student guild, tuition, ancillary service fees).
• Conduct ‘Head Start Net Training’ to develop Internet information access skills by Library staff.
• Develop strategies to overcome negative impact on special consideration applications of the new QTAC phone-in system.
• Expand alumni grants scheme to cover all students of low socio-economic backgrounds.
• Target people of low-SES backgrounds at an open day for potential mature age students.

Historical/Reviews

Historically, QUT’s low-SES access has been lower than state and national averages, kindred universities and our catchment representation (23.55%), despite increasing effort over the years. By contrast, our success and retention have always been above or close to 1.00. We attribute the drop in 1998 retention to students’ financial difficulties, which we had anticipated and are acting on. Community poverty and rising fees/charges are the biggest challenges facing this group and the most difficult issues to assist students with.

The major evaluation of the Q-Step program referred to last year resulted in many recommendations, which are being gradually implemented, including increasing our effort with mature-age students. Consequently no new formal reviews/evaluations occurred in 1998.

Measuring Success

The strategies above, including a significant expansion of staff in the Q-Step/Nexus program, should increase access to 15% by 2001 which will go close to halving the current gap between access and catchment representation. Success and retention should reach, or be maintained, at 1.00.

• Provide alternative assessment provisions for NESB students.
• Support the Cultural Diversity Working Party.
• Organise anti-racism education campaigns eg Orange Ribbon Campaign, Multi-Cultural Fiesta, postcards, public statements of support by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor.
• A dedicated Cultural Diversity Project Officer (half-time appointment for two years at HEWA8) to increase training and discussion forums to promote cultural diversity and anti-racism.
• The position of a cross-cultural curriculum officer in Teaching and Learning Support Services.
• Various faculty projects to ensure culturally responsive and internationalised curricula.

• Complete audit of NESB support services and analysis of language groups by end of 1998.
• Develop a handbook for NESB students undertaking practicums in the Faculty of Education.

Historical/Reviews

Using 1996 census data, the catchment representation for NESB students is 3.21%, higher than the whole-state figure of 2.6%. Our access and participation figures dropped between 1997 and 1998, reflecting a national and Queensland trend. However, the access rate for commencing students (3.17%) remains close to the catchment target; the share of total students (3.28%) is above the catchment target; and our participation is higher than the national average.

The success rate of NESB students rose but at 0.930 remains below that of other students. Success rates for NESB students are significantly lower in the following areas: humanities, education, computing science, civil engineering, public health and business.

In 1998 the retention rate dropped below 1.00 for the first time. A number of faculties have focussed on this equity group when undertaking faculty and university sponsored equity initiatives. After the NESB audit is completed later this year, the University will be in a better position to know where the gaps in service and support are and whether there are any particular issues for students of specific language backgrounds which impact on their success and retention.

Measuring Success

By 2001, we aim to maintain access and participation at catchment area levels, increase success rates to the Queensland average (0.980) and return the retention rate to at least 1.00.

• Maintain the Adaptive Technology Laboratories and provide community access for visually-impaired primary school students.
• Provide alternative assessment provisions.
• Offer the UNITASTE program (outreach program for high school students with a disability) on an annual basis through the Tertiary Initiatives for People with Disabilities (TIPD) Program.
• Fund the Disability Officers and double the number of Disability Officers for six weeks at the beginning of each semester to cope with peak demand periods.
• Maintain the Curriculum Access fund.
• Support the Disability Contact Officers network.
• Support the TIPD program.
• Support the Disability Services Committee of Equity Board.

• Develop a Disability Awareness Workshop for staff.
• Establish a third Adaptive Technology Laboratory on the Kelvin Grove campus.
• Upgrade software and services in the existing Adaptive Technology Laboratories to international best practice standards.
• Consult faculties re including an accessible workstation in faculty computer laboratories.
• Re-engineer the implementation of individual student management plans, administrative and clerical support for the disabilities program and employ additional casual staff.
• Implement recommendations arising from the review of assessment arrangements.
• Interview students to determine their reasons for not continuing with their courses and identify strategies to further increase the success and retention of students.
• Respond to findings of the Division of Information Services Disability Access Audit.

Historical/Reviews

The 1998 percentage of commencing students (2.21%) and the percentage of all students (2.52%) put the catchment figure of 4% within striking distance in the medium term. The retention rate for 1998 has seen a big increase from 0.936 in 1997 to 1.006. Consequently demand for support services is at an all time high, and both extra funds and reengineering have been applied to the area. The success rate is also up from 0.940 to 0.970. Students with disabilities have a lower success rate in the following areas: social studies, education, mathematics/computing, civil engineering, marketing and international business, interior architecture and industrial design.

In 1994 UNITASTE, a quality-initiative funded outreach program for students with disabilities, was held for the first time and has been held annually since then. In 1997 a follow-up of students who participated in the inaugural UNITASTE was undertaken: 13 of the 20 participants are now undertaking university or TAFE studies.

Measuring Success

By 2001, we expect to achieve an access rate of 2.5%; to maintain retention at 1.00 or above and to lift success to 1.00.

• Continue the interactive satellite broadcast to rural centres and improve the quality of the video package used during these interactive sessions.

• Develop on-line resources, for example web pages and E-mail interest groups, targeting students in rural and isolated areas.
• Maintain contact with regional students who visited the Science Train in 1997 to ensure an ongoing connection with QUT and interest in science.

Historical/Reviews

Rural and isolated students are not priority target groups. Therefore access and participation rates are historically below catchment area representation (27.7%), and national/Queensland averages. However, the University has maintained its participation rate and increased the access rate for rural students and experienced only a small decline in both rates for isolated students. This can be attributed to an increasingly active guidance officers’ network promoting the Q-Step program, the Science Train and the interactive satellite broadcast to rural centres. An evaluation of the satellite broadcast was positive and this initiative will now become an annual activity. A tracking system will also allow the University to monitor how successful the broadcast is as an access device.

Despite declines, success rates for students of rural and isolated backgrounds have remained above state and national averages (over 1.00). The most significant decline in 1998 was in retention for students from isolated areas from 1.026 in 1997 to 0.995. This is attributed to economic factors and will be addressed through our low-SES program. Students from isolated areas have lower success rates in the following areas: education, mathematics/computing, engineering, nursing and business.

Measuring Success

By 2001, we aim to retain success and retention at or close to 1.00 for both rural and isolated students; increase access to 16% for rural students and 1.65% for isolated students.

• Women in Built Environment and Engineering program through the dedicated coordinator.
• Support female students in the Faculty of Information Technology by, for example, dedicating 50% of the Faculty Teaching Support Officer position to female students.
• An annual re-entry fellowship and scholarship for women.
• A five-day Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering Science Spring School for women.
• Investigate strategies to develop support networks and schemes for new researchers and researchers who have interrupted research careers.
• Scholarships at postgraduate level and pursue industry sponsored scholarships.

• Complete expansion of on-site child care on the Gardens Point campus.
• Complete survey of postgraduate student satisfaction including students from equity groups.
• Develop outreach programs to encourage women into information technology and engineering.

Historical/Reviews

Access and participation rates for women in all non-traditional areas, apart from business/economics, are below both national and state averages. Access also declined in 1998 in architecture and engineering. While access increased in science there were some disparities between access rates in different fields of study, with the best performance in the computing/information technology field.

The ratio of female higher degree research students to undergraduate is over 1.00 in all fields of study except business/economics, which increased from 0.932 in 1997 to 0.950. The rate of higher degree coursework students to undergraduate is over 1.00 in engineering and increased in architecture from 0.582 in 1997 to 0.863 and in science from 0.489 in 1997 to 0.956. There was a decline however in business/economics from 0.941 in 1997 to 0.927. The success rate for women in all non-traditional areas and the retention rate for all female students are consistently over 1.00.

In 1998, 32% of the women who attended the 1994 Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering Spring Science School are currently enrolled in a QUT course, although only 2% are enrolled in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering.

Measuring Success

By 2001, increase access to 38% in architecture, 12% in engineering, 40% in science; maintain access at 50% or over in business/economics; maintain success and retention at 1.00 or above for all fields of study; and maintain or increase the ratio of higher degree research and coursework to undergraduate students at or near 1.00.

• Offer university equity grants for projects to increase the access of all equity group students.
• Support equity committees and equity initiatives in every faculty and division.
• Conduct staff training including the ‘Back to Basics’ training program series.
• Monitor equity-related grievances and maintain contact officer networks.
• Provide newsletters, other relevant publications and E-mail discussion forums.
• Offer awards for best practice/innovation in equity.
• Offer an equity scholarship for the Master of Laws (LLM) (course work) in the Faculty of Law.
• Proactively encourage the inclusion of equity strategies in faculty/divisional plans and performance management agreements.
• Integrate information about QUT’s special and alternative entry programs and support services into all mainstream marketing/outreach activities.

• Promote the use of equity-related practical guides and checklists for managers, including guidelines for the appropriate assessment of equity-related selection criteria.
• Implement the review of equity-related and non-equity related grievance procedures.
• Survey staff and students about attitudes/knowledge regarding equity issues in 1999, and compare with 1996 findings.
• Progress the teaching and learning project ‘Internationalising the Curriculum - Getting Systematic and Broadening the Perspective’.
• Develop outreach programs for all equity group high school students using current university students in the Faculties of Health and Built Environment and Engineering.
• Develop a brochure promoting Education to potential equity group students.

MERIT AND EQUITY SCHOLARSHIPS

QUT was allocated 43 EFTSU scholarships in 1998. As in 1997, low socio-economic status remained the primary criterion for allocation, however the targeted applicant pool was much larger in 1998. Information and application forms (see attachment four) were sent directly to all enrolled students who were identified as belonging to one of the six equity target groups, according to DEETYA definitions (2200 students).

Over 400 applications were assessed by a Reference Group on the basis of income and disadvantage indicators which were allocated weighted points (see assessor’s guide in attachment four). As well as equity group membership, ‘disadvantage’ included income, dependant and primary carer responsibilities, refugee status and multiple disadvantages. Fifty actual scholarships were awarded with one unsuccessful appeal. Thirty-two scholarship recipients belonged to multiple equity groups resulting in the following distribution: Q-Step students (special entry program for low-SES students) - 27; other low-SES students - 12; Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander students - 4; rural or isolated students - 7; non-English speaking background students - 4; students with a disability - 14; women studying in non-traditional areas - 4.

Contact Officer

If you would like further information on any aspect of this report, please contact Mary Kelly, Equity Coordinator, ph 07 3864 2115 fax 07 3864 2689, e-mail ma.kelly@qut.edu.au

Back  -  Return to Contents  -  Next