Notes of the College Liaison Group meeting, 15June 2016, College Development Network, Stirling
Part 1: Liaison group business
Attendance
Jo Aitken / SRUCGraeme Brewster / City of Glasgow College
Freya Douglas / Equality Challenge Unit
Helen Duncan / Perth College UHI
Shelagh Fraser / West Lothian College
Halena Gauntlett / Scottish Funding Council
Claire Hall / Fife College
Caroline Hutchison / Glasgow Clyde College
Susan Inglis / Edinburgh College
Suzanne Marshall / College Development Network
Doreen Shiels / Glasgow Kelvin College
Carline Storey / Forth Valley College
Sara Taylor / Edinburgh College
1.Welcome and apologies
=The group were welcomed to the meeting and CDN were thanked for hosting the meeting.
=Apologies were noted from Elaine Ballantyne (South Lanarkshire College); Stephanie Millar (ECU); Fiona Clark (Fife College); Marla Baird (Ayrshire College); Priscilla Marongwe (SRUC); Nancy Birney (Glasgow Clyde College).
2. Notes of the last meeting
The notes of the meeting were approved with the following being discussed:
=Race network – There had been low bookings for the upcoming meeting on 30 June. The group said this was due to it being a busy time of year rather than a lack of interest. An autumn meeting would be appreciated. If the June meeting goes ahead, sharing resources/outputs would be appreciated for those not able to attend. If an online forum option could be developed more colleges may be able to take part.
=Trans research – ECU updated the group on the new trans project being undertaken by the University of Strathclyde (see paper for full details).
Action: Edinburgh College offered to share the work they were developing with the researchers.
=BSL avatar – an error in the notes was highlighted. A new BSL ‘glove’ was mentioned by SM.
Action: ECU to amend the notes.
=CLG dropbox – This had been set-up and would be shared following the meeting. Members can add resources/research etc. that they want to share.
Action: ECU to share the dropbox ASAP.
2. ECU briefing paper
=ECU’s 2016 Conference - Discussion highlighted that bringing colleges and universities together enabled different perspectives to be shared, however the day was a little too long.
Action – ECU to share with City of Glasgow the feedback from their workshop.
=Board project – Board diversity was discussed, with the lack of data on diversity being an issue. There was a variety of practice in terms of equality monitoring of boards. Training for board members was also discussed. The group asked if the basic E&D training for boards could be ready in autumn 2016, as some would be training new members.
Action – ECU to share the timelines for the training with the group.
3. CDN update
=CDN had published their June E&D newsletter.
=They were planning an ‘Emporium of dangerous ideas’ event focused on Developing the Young Workforce, which includes equality.
=Their STEM forum was due to meet and had good uptake.
=Their work on cultural intelligence was progressing. Four webinars would take place.
=They had commissioned Pauline Hanesworth of the Higher Education Academy in a consultancy capacity to undertake some equality in the curriculum work, which will result in an output in the autumn.
=Ayrshire College had launched its ‘Ayrshire Connects’ network for female STEM students with an event. A speaker, Dr Sarah Murray from the US, was highly rated.
Part 2: Equality outcomes workshop
Session 1: What have we learnt from last time?
This session aimed to help colleges to reflect on their previous sets of outcomes to extract lessons to inform their new outcomes. It focused on:
=How well outcomes had met all the duty requirements
=The process used for setting the previous outcomes
=How well the outcomes had been progressed/achieved
Group activity notes
1. What worked well? What would we do again this time?
=College sector generally met the outcomes duty, and should be proud of this
=Equality outcomes raised awareness of E&D in colleges, including at senior levels
=Communication - outcomes sent a message that equality is valued by the college
=Reporting on progress was an opportunity to showcase good practice – inspires and challenges others to change their practice (competitive angle worked)
=Previous outcomes created a baseline of where colleges were with equality
=Some felt the outcomes had created a change in college culture
=Working with partners was positive and productive for some
=Common language with outcome agreements (use of outcomes) helped with senior buy-in
2. What would we do differently this time?
=Tackle a narrower range of issues– have fewer and more specific outcomes so they are more realistic and manageable.
=Focus on the key priorities, not all equality work being undertaken by the college
=Have the duties in mind (three aims of the PSED) when prioritising
=Ensure outcomes are measurable (impact measures) to enable reporting on progress
=Publish summary reports to better engage stakeholders – less is more
=Exclude action plans and keep these for internal use
=Use graphical presentations/tables to make reports user-friendly
=Provide a narrative of why outcomes were chosen, what progress there had been on the last outcomes, how all requirements of the duty have been met in setting the new outcomes e.g. explain the involvement carried out and the evidence used
=Be flexible – try different approaches as not everything works
=Gather evidence of progress on an ongoing basis rather than all at the end
Session 2. Planning the outcome setting process
The aim of this section was to give colleges a head start in planning the process they would use and the steps they would take to set their outcomes. ECU presented its draft suggested process for setting outcomes to inform the session. This will be published in a guidance document in July.
Overview of process presented:
1. Investigate equality issues
=Review previous outcomes
=Involve people
=Gather and consider evidence
2. Identify equality outcomes
=Prioritise
=Formulate
3. Disseminate equality outcomes
=Seek approval
=Publish
The group approved of the suggested process, saying that is captured the key activities they would be undertaking and was a helpful guide. From discussions throughout the day, ECU reflected that Stage 2 required greater content in relation to putting in place senior commitment and responsibility for the outcomes, so this will be amended in the final version.
Group activity notes
Stage 1 (Investigate equality issues):
=Create (or adapt) a pro forma for the outcomes at the start of the process (see example in ECU’s new guidance)
=Review progress on previous outcomes - liaise with partners to get up to date data
=Hold events to share findings and identify gaps in progress on previous outcomes
=Draw together information gathered over the last two years
=Include anecdotal data as well as hard data
=Look at ECU’s student stats report for national and regional equality issues
=Consider priorities from: Developing the Workforce, Gender action plan, outcome agreement
=Look at research and good practice reports by equality charities eg Stonewall
=Group to share their data sources on CLG dropbox
=Use census data explorer
Stage 2 (Identify equality outcomes):
=Undertake prioritisation at EDI group meeting
=Use the checklist in ECU’s new guidance to help prioritise – make prioritisation less subjective
=Think about the big changes the college can make – biggest impact
=Consider regional context
=Look at EHRC guidance on outcome wording
=Delegate outcomes across EDI group
=Create ownership for the outcomes
=Have the outcomes as an agenda item on EDI group each meeting (for progress oversight)
=Have a VP chair the EDI group to ensure senior buy-in
Stage 3 (Disseminate equality outcomes):
=Find out board dates and plan backwards from there
=Involve marketing team early
=Hold a dissemination event for the outcomes – involve students’ association
=Use existing groups/committees to disseminate the outcomes e.g. IDEAS group at Clyde
Session 3: Equality in outcomes agreements
The third session of the day focused on strategic alignment and mainstreaming, with the conversation concentrating on embedding equality outcomes in new SFC outcome agreements.
Discussions points:
=Embedding outcomes in outcome agreements helps increase senior and board accountability for the outcomes as they are linked to funding
=With new outcome agreements for 2017-20 being negotiated in autumn, it is a great opportunity to include the new equality outcomes for 2017-21 (where they fit outcome agreement themes)
=Members could meet with regional board chair to raise awareness of equality outcomes
=Members could meet the outcome agreement author in the college/region and the SFC outcome agreement manager for the college to tell them about the new equality outcomes being developed – SFC can connect you
=Recognise the differences in the outcome agreement population of focus and equality outcomes (just F/T in OAs). Will mean targets/numbers different in each
=If SFC required equality and diversity leads to be involved in the OA process, e.g. signing-off the document, this could ensure equality is more fully embedded
=SFC should require colleges to undertake the equality impact assessment at the start of the OA process and frame it as a policy development tool
=While OAs and equality outcomes have different deadlines, colleges could mention that new equality outcomes were being developed and provide a weblink
=If OAs take institutional strategy as their starting point, and equality outcomes are adequately matched against these strategies, then embedding of equality should happen more naturally
Close of meeting
Dates of future CLG meetings, hosted by CDN:
=5 October 2016
1