University of South Australia

The University of South Australia has had a strong commitment to equity from its foundation in January 1991. Its Act of Establishment specifies one of the University's major functions as "to provide such tertiary education programmes as the University thinks appropriate to meet the needs of groups within the community that the University considers have suffered disadvantages in education".

The University takes a two-fold approach to equity, addressing it both in its own right and as an integral aspect of the University’s core business. Equity is thus embedded in the University's Mission, goals and objectives, not only in those focused specifically on equity, but also in those relating to each of the core areas of quality teaching and learning, research, consultancy, and community service. Since the quality of these core activities is identified and measured through reference to the University’s Mission, equity is also embedded in the University’s approach to quality. With nearly half of the University’s students belonging to one or more of the nationally identified equity target groups, their needs necessarily shape the pattern and nature of the University’s services. The Equity Plan and Indigenous Education Strategy have been fully integrated into the University's Corporate Plan and thus into all aspects of the University's planning and reporting processes. In addition, equity and inclusivity underpin the ‘Qualities of a University of South Australia Graduate’ and Teaching and Learning frameworks.

From 1996, all faculties and units have been required to develop local equity plans within their individual annual plans. These plans address the University’s overall priorities but are based on an analysis of equity data which relates specifically to the roles and responsibilities of the particular faculty or unit.

The University’s Equity Plan aims to achieve longer-term change as well as shorter-term redress by addressing the causes as well as remedying the outcomes of differential patterns of access, participation and success indicators for the equity target groups. It emphasises University-wide strategies, such as the USANET Special Access Scheme and the Inclusive Curriculum Project, which address the University’s equity priorities. These priorities reflect areas identified both nationally and institutionally as requiring more work. They are:

One of the University's major goals, adopted in 1991 and amended in 1995, reflects the University's commitment to equity:

Goal 5: To promote access and equity of educational participation and outcomes for groups for whom higher education opportunities have been limited, and ensure that teaching and research programs identify, respond to and reflect a diverse student population.

Goal 5 and its related objectives form the foundation of the University's Equity Plan. The four Equity Plan objectives were revised in 1996 in line with the University’s conceptual framework for equity, as well as current developments in national equity planning. These objectives were designed to improve the quality of students’ learning experiences and to improve the access, participation and outcomes of the five identified equity groups. The University is planning to undertake a major review of its mission, goals and objectives in the latter half of 1998.

For several years now the University’s equity planning has focused strongly on embedding an equity focus in all its activities. The University is pleased with the extent to which equity planning has already been successfully embedded in mainstream planning. Integral to our equity planning at both university-wide and faculty level is the monitoring and analysis of the nationally recognised equity performance indicators. Each equity strategy is evaluated as part of the annual planning and review process: in some cases this involves discrete data, but in most cases (as, for example, the program to review all courses to ensure their inclusivity) the University believes that performance can be measured best through long-term trends in the existing equity performance indicators. Reference to the national performance indicators has been maintained wherever possible to facilitate external benchmarking.^*

Faculty equity plans have been integral to the annual planning and review process since 1996. All faculties develop equity plans incorporating the analysis of local equity data (including equity performance indicators), the identification of priorities and the formulation of strategies to address inequities. In order to facilitate this process, the University’s Planning Unit has developed a software package which provides specialised equity data to faculties, in addition to the existing annual provision of detailed course statistics, including equity indicators. Assistance is provided to faculties in their equity planning by the Higher Education Equity Programme (HEEP) funded

Equity Planning Officer. Emphasis is being placed on the need for faculty-wide consultation on, engagement with and ownership of equity issues.

As part of the annual planning and review process, administrative and service units too have developed equity plans, reviewing procedures and services to ensure that these reflect and respond effectively to equity considerations in terms of student access to and use of services. A key strategy for 1998 is collaboration between the Human Resources Unit, the International Office, the Flexible Learning Centre and the Equal Opportunity Unit in raising cross-cultural awareness throughout the University. The Information Technology Unit, the Library and the Flexible Learning Centre routinely analyse usage of their services by equity group. The Flexible Learning Centre is currently acting to address under-usage of its support services by rural and isolated students.

The main aim of the University's Inclusive Curriculum Project ( to be concluded in August 1998) is to negotiate and facilitate processes and procedures at the faculty level which will embed inclusivity into curriculum development. The Project also has five specific objectives relating to policy, practice, documentation, product, review and audit. Current outcomes include the following:

In response to the recommendations of a major EIP-funded review, Outcomes of a university’s flexible admissions policies (Ramsay et al. 1996), a pilot program has incorporated general study skills (for example, essay writing) into core undergraduate first-year subjects. Discipline-specific study skills have been trialed in core subjects in the Faculty of Business and Management, targeting NESB students in particular.

The University is pleased to report an increase in low SES access from 20.2% in 1997 to 22.2% in 1998. This reverses what had been successive decreases since 1995. The University’s low SES participation during that period nonetheless compared well with that of our benchmarking group: the University achieved the highest rate in 1996 and second highest in 1997 for the 15-24 age group, and second and third highest rates for those over 25. In both years our low SES participation was well above both the State and national averages.

A review by the University of entry mechanisms in late 1996, and the national report, Equality, diversity and excellence: advancing the national higher education equity framework, both highlighted the continuing under-representation of people from low SES and isolated areas in higher education. The University recognises the overlap between these groups. Therefore despite the University’s relatively good progress in achieving access for low SES, as outlined above, improving low SES and isolated access continues to be one of the University’s equity priorities.

The USANET Scheme targets secondary students who experience compounded educational disadvantage through a combination of individual hardship and attendance at a designated disadvantaged school in South Australia. The scheme involves a three-pronged approach of outreach, entry and support.

Since USANET’s implementation in 1996, numbers of applications and enrolments through the scheme have increased steadily (see table 1). A second stream, comprising rural and isolated (CAP) schools, was added in 1998 (see below for details).

	1996	1997	1998 Stream 1	1998 Stream 2	1998 Total
Applications	299	325	271	125	396
Enrolments	121	142	117	53	170

An EIP-funded study into low SES access and support at this University, focusing on the USANET scheme and similar programs at other universities, was completed in June 1998. It shows that the scheme is successfully reaching the targeted equity group students, with low SES, NESB and rural and isolated students particularly well served. Teachers interviewed feel that the program’s efforts to change the culture of the designated schools and the expectations of their students are beginning to be successful. The study’s recommendations will be implemented in 1998-1999.

An earlier EIP study in 1996, led by the Pro Vice Chancellor (Equity and Academic Support) and Manager: Planning, investigated cross-sectoral linkages at the University of South Australia. A major component of this research involved a detailed analysis of credit transfer arrangements between the University and TAFE. The recommendations of this report aim to facilitate linkages with TAFE and other VET providers. The University consistently admits between 7% and 9% of its students on the basis of TAFE studies, but up to a quarter of its commencing undergraduates have undertaken some prior TAFE study.

The Diploma of University Studies was introduced as a bridging or first qualification for mature-aged students who had experienced educational disadvantage and who may not have qualified otherwise for entry to university. Students may transfer to degree-level studies during the Diploma or on its completion. The Diploma has met with falling demand since its first intake in 1995, possibly reflecting the negative impact of changes to HECS on mature-aged students. It has, however, been successful in providing students without the usual prerequisites with access to degree-level studies, with a number of students transferring ahead of schedule. It is interesting to note the high proportion of students with a disability enrolled in the course: 15.5% of total enrolments in 1997 and 17.2% in 1998. Since 1996, about 30% of the course’s students have been low SES.

HEEP funding has supported a recent review of the Diploma. The most important recommendation from the review is the broadening of the award from a vocationally-focused bridging course to a more general bridging course, giving access to a wider range of degree-level study, and marketing it intensively as such. In addition, the Diploma will be marketed nationally as a bridging course, stage one of which will be available in the external mode, to identified courses at other Australian Technology Network universities.

A policy on equity places in fee-paying postgraduate courses, developed in 1997, was implemented for 1998 admissions. This policy allows for 30 HECS-liable places to be awarded in fee-paying postgraduate courses to students who meet specific equity criteria.

The University is pleased to report an increase, the first since 1995, in the proportion of commencing rural students in 1998 to 12.1%, and a stabilisation in the proportion of isolated students at 3.0%. Comparison with our benchmarking group reveals that the University maintained its third place position for both groups from 1996 to 1997. Rural participation was well above the State average, but below the national average, while isolated participation was above both the State and the national averages. Success indicators for isolated students, another of the University’s equity priorities, have improved since 1995 and remain stable at 0.97.

The low SES schools targeted by the USANET scheme included several isolated schools. Continuing under-representation of isolated students at the University however prompted the development of a second USANET stream targeting isolated and rural schools identified under the Country Areas Program. The new stream of USANET has more than doubled the number of targeted schools, to 67, for the 1998 intake. Please refer to the entry under Low SES for figures. Further expansion of the program to target non-metropolitan TAFE students is planned.

The university-wide access rate of NESB students has increased steadily from 2.1% in 1995 to 3.2% in 1998. Access rates improved significantly from 1996 to 1997; the University went from sixth place to third place in our benchmarking group. However, NESB students remain underrepresented in certain fields of study. While NESB retention rates are generally high, success indicators remain a matter of concern at 0.92, particularly since 1996 and 1997 figures showed a fall from second to fifth place in the benchmarking group and a positioning below both the State and national averages.

NESB students are well represented among the University’s USANET students, hold up to 45% of the equity HECS exemption scholarships, and are among the major targets of the Inclusive Curriculum Project. NESB students are eligible for alternative assessment procedures under the University’s alternative assessment guidelines. Other strategies targeting NESB students are faculty specific, and include strategies to support improved success rates in faculties with high participation rates and an investigation into low NESB participation in the Faculties of Education and of Humanities and Social Sciences. Recommendations of the latter include niche marketing of specific courses, emphasising the desirability of a second language.

Women’s participation in non-traditional areas has increased steadily since 1995 in all areas but Engineering. The increase in women in research degrees (to 49.4% of all commencing research degree students in 1998) is particularly pleasing, and follows a successful project to raise awareness of equity issues in recruiting, supervising and monitoring research degree students. All faculties are required to work towards representation of women at research degree level proportionate to that at Bachelors level. The proportion of women in research degrees relative to the number at undergraduate level was nevertheless below both the State and national averages, and lowest in the benchmarking group, in both 1996 and 1997.

Performance indicators for assessing success at research degree level by gender were identified and trialed in 1996-1997. These include publications during study, time taken to complete and assessors’ grades. No significant inequities were identified, but monitoring over several years will be necessary for meaningful comparison. Success rates for prospective students applying for admission to research degrees and for scholarships are also analysed by gender. Research Degrees Committee reviews and responds to these and other selected indicators annually.

The lack of progress in Engineering (access has fallen from a high of 13.2% in 1996 to 9.8% in 1998) is disappointing in view of recent efforts made by the relevant faculties in their outreach program to schools and in effecting long-term change in curriculum, degree structure and culture. The women in non-traditional studies (WINS) vacation school for year 11 and 12 girls, discontinued

in 1996 when responsibility for WINS was placed with the relevant faculties, is therefore being reviewed in 1998. Access rates for women in Engineering were the highest in the benchmarking group in 1996 and in second place in 1997, though they were below both the State and national averages.

There has been a steady increase in the participation rate of students with a disability from 0.6% in 1994 to 1.6% in 1998 (3.1% by the new definition). In 1997 the University was in second place among the benchmarking group and above the national average, but slightly below the State average. Of the University’s 673 students who indicated at enrolment in 1998 that they had a disability, 251 (37%) are registered for support through Disability Support Services. Of these, 42 receive resource-based support (for example, note-takers and interpreters). Students with a disability are eligible for alternative assessment procedures. The provision of support for students with a disability has moved from the Equal Opportunity Unit to the Student Support Services section. A new Disability Support Officer commenced in early July 1998 with responsibility for coordinating support for all students with a disability across the University.

Implementation of the University’s Disability Action Plan has begun. The Plan establishes a framework for providing access and reasonable accommodation for people with a disability and outlines objectives relating to the increased participation and success of students with disabilities. These range from ensuring that student recruitment programs reflect the University’s policy of equality of access, to minimising access restrictions, to ensuring that students with a disability are aware of the full range of support services available to them.

In developing the plan, current programs and areas which need further attention within the University have been identified and reviewed. These include matters of policy development, support for students and staff with a disability, academic programs and staff development. An essential element of the plan is an access audit by the University’s Property Unit, completed in 1997. This audit is also a major strategy of the Property Unit’s Equity Plan and provides a list of major and minor capital works to be prioritised for attention as part of a five year plan.

The University applied the same eligibility criteria and administrative processes as in 1997 in allocating the 1998 DEETYA Merit-based Equity Scholarships. Those most in need of financial assistance were targeted, with applicants ranked according to a set of weighted financial need and equity indicators. These indicators reflect the University’s priority equity target groups: low SES, isolated, indigenous and rural.

All students offered an undergraduate place at the University received an application form and information about the scheme. Over 1 000 applications were received and processed. A computer program ranked applications according to the weighted equity criteria. Scholarships were offered to 43 students, of whom 38 were enrolled at the 31 March census date. Most scholarship recipients were members of several equity groups. All equity groups except rural students were highly represented.

Note: 1. The breakdown of recipients by the DEETYA definition of Low SES was not available. All scholarship holders must meet several financial hardship criteria including holding a Healthcare card and, in most cases, being recipients of AUSTUDY, ABSTUDY or a pension.