1
Notes of ECU Scottish HEI Liaison Group meeting, 30March 2016, University of Aberdeen
Attendance
Adams, Kirstie / University of GlasgowAnwar, Naseem / University of Strathclyde
Bass, David / Equality Challenge Unit
Caldwell, Fiona / University of Abertay
Caplan, Roz / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland
Chalmers, Janine / University of Aberdeen
Croft, Ian / Robert Gordon University
Duff, Graeme / University of Stirling
Docherty, Edna / University of Stirling
Johnstone, Allison / Equate Scotland
Loke, Gary / Equality Challenge Unit
Masson, Muriel / Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
Morrison, Iain / University of the Highlands and Islands
Scarlett, Rebecca / Lead Scotland
Tracey, Gemma / Equality Challenge Unit
Trivedi, Ajit / University of Dundee
Apologies: Sharan Virdee (HWU); Helen Duncan (UHI); Adrian Liu (GCU); Gail Carin-Levy (QMU); Kate Signorini (OU);Mohammed Hameed(Napier); Carolyn Murray (UWS); Pauline Hanesworth (HEA), Mark Wild (US).
1. Welcome and introductions
=ECU welcomed members and thanked the University of Aberdeen for hosting the meeting.
2. Notes of last meeting
=The group agreed the draft notes of the October meeting and these will be added to the ECU website.
=The remaining action from the notes was for Universities Scotland (US) to provide an update on Prevent. US wasn’t able to attend the meeting, however, Iain Morrison (UHI) provided the group with an update on the day.
3. ECU Briefing paper discussion
Ongoing work
DB talked through the ECU briefing paper and responded to questions from SLG members.
DB noted in particular:
=The articulation and equality project is complete; the datasets and briefing have been published online.
=Project progress report from Attracting Diversity is on the ECU website, including updates from each of the institutions that participated in the pilot. DB noted that some of the approaches that participating institutions are taking have changed since the pilot.
=DB updated members on Attracting Diversity stage 2 project progress, noting that 13 HEIs and 10 colleges are involved. One cross-institutional meeting has already taken place and each participating institution has had its first project visit by ECU. The group noted concern about the level of work the project requires, but noted the benefit of the project requiring participating institutions to be very focused on a particular equality area. The group also requested that ECU share with SLG members what each institution is doing as part of Attracting Diversity.
=DB noted the intersectionality report on Scottish entrants is now also available online.
Action: ECU to share details of what each institution is doing as part of Attracting Diversity.
=ECU completed a review of 2015 PSED reporting and a briefing is available online, along with examples of practice across the reporting requirements.
=ECU had published an updated toolkit for embedding equality in outcome agreements(OAs) to support HEIs to meet the enhanced SFC requirements on E&D, including conducting an equality impact assessment (EIA) of the outcome agreement.
=The groupdiscussed these two items together, and noted the challenge created by the fact that SFC outcome agreements do not fully match with the PSED requirements, in particular the strong focus on gender in OAs and the associated lack of focus on other protected characteristics.
=DB noted that ECU has had ongoing discussion with the SFC about how the outcome agreement process can better reflect EOs and equality and diversity more broadly. DB highlighted upcoming opportunities at ECU’s conference and at the next SLG meeting to discuss OAs and EOs and potentially to influence the SFC to broaden its focus beyond gender and invited members to contribute to these discussions.
=The group suggested that someone from the EHRC should be involved at the next SLG and noted the difficulty faced by small HEIs because the data becomes so small.
Action: ECU to discuss EHRC input to EO setting at SLG or future event.
=Thegoverning bodies, equality and diversity research report had been well received. A handbook for governors will be produced in summer 2016.
=The group asked what the handbook will include, and in particular whether it takes into consideration the new HE Bill and the election of chairs.
Action: ECU to check and confirm whether or not this is the case.
=DB shared that thecompetence standardsproject is ongoing. The guidance has been published online and a shorter version of the guidance is being produced for quality leads, with QAA, and for academics with HEA. A series of webinars for academics was deliveredwith HEA.
=The group requested that ECU circulate the information it has published about both intersectionality and competence standards.
Action: ECU to share links to the intersectionality report and competence standards outputs
=ECU’s Scotland conference,for colleges and HEIs will be held in April 2016.
Iain Morrison offered to provide an update on Prevent:
=UHI has viewed Prevent as another approach to safeguarding and has produced university wide guidance for implementation.
=HEIs in Scotland are self-regulatory (in England HEFCE is the regulator and for colleges in Scotland Education Scotland provides a regulatory function).
=Anyone identified under Prevent is referred to the Prevent Professional Concerns (PPC), thepolice led anti-radicalisation programmein Scotland; in England and Wales they are referred to Channel, which performs a similar function.
ECU had been asked by Universities Scotland to contribute evidence to a panel in early February on the TEF, ELIR and potential quality frameworks for Scotland. David asked for the SLG's thoughts and key points to inform ECU’s input to this process.
SLG thoughts on current quality processes:
=ELIR includes equality considerations but in practice there is a lot of variation in whether and how E&D is incorporated.
=The onus is currently on the institution to identify and implement what would be effective practice in embedding E&D in ELIR.
=In practice, engagement with E&D seemed to be due to the priorities of individuals managing the process -there were examples of institutions with good practice in E&D previously that no longer seem to account for equality in ELIR in the same way, likely due to staff changes.
=On the whole, the group felt more E&D input was needed.
=Some panels have E&D expertise,receiveE&D training, undertake EIAs of ELIR and/ormainstream E&D across theprocess.
=For manyinstitutionshowever, it is still a tick box exercise and E&D isn't substantively included in existing practice.
=Institutions have to take initiative to e.g. pull together diverse groups of students for input or involve international students.
Recommendations from the group on quality frameworks going forwards:
=Formally linking ELIR/TEF to other projects and policies that explicitly account for equality.
=E&D training for panel members.
4. Race equality network for Scottish FE and HE
DB shared a consultation document with details of the suggested Race Equality Network for Scottish HEIs and colleges and asked for feedback from the group on the proposal. DB noted that ECU had worked with Nona McDuff (Chair of HERAG) to ensure that the Network complements the work of HERAG.
The group was supportive of the race network proposal. Key points from conversation:
=The group mentioned the utility of local charities andthe Scottish Government's race equality framework, but felt this work was usually too generic or high level to be of much use to HEIs. A sector specific network (or cross sector networkwith colleges) would be valued and would complement other Scottish race initiatives.
=It was felt the group would provide valuable space for sharing practice and approaches for both REC and non-REC members, and that the existence of this Network may provide another forum for consultation and discussion.
=The group was supportive of the specifics of the proposal and draft terms of reference, but thought the network itself should set and agree parameters/ToR.
=There were a number of areasthe group thought required agreement, including remit, membership/wider involvement, number of dates/meetings. They also wanted the network to be autonomous, e.g.able to review its first year and progress and amend practices as appropriate.
=The group thought a first initial meeting in June, with a set number of delegates from each institution,could discuss and decide these issues, and agree ToR/parameters for the network. The network would then run as normal with thesecond meeting in the new academic year.
=The group suggested Nona'sinvolvementin this first meeting would be valuable, both as anadviserbut alsoinrelation to linking/complementing HERAG.
=Abertay and Strathclyde volunteered to host/chair the first twomeetings.
Action:ECU to agree a first meeting date with Abertay/Strathclyde and invite Scottish institutions to attend. ECU will also invite Nona in her capacity as Chair of HERAG.
5. “Confident Diversity” intervention model for STEM – Allison Johnstone, Equate Scotland
=Allison from Equate presented the pilot model for developing equality and diversity competence alongside employability and leadership skills with students at Napier University. The aim of the model is to tackle occupational segregation and inequalities within the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) fields.
=The pilot was undertaken with a class of 60 3rd Year electrical engineering and engineering with management students. A two hour workshop was developed that will cover diversity in terms of both E&D and diversity of approaches to work/life. The model engaged with students by being folded into the standard curriculum and used usual lecturing staff in the introduction.
=Initial findings from the pilot showed that over 90% of students rated the workshop between 7 and 10, on a 10 point scale, for usefulness; over 60% identified new behaviour they plan to implement as a result of the workshop and almost 90% identified new learning from the workshop. Full results will be available in an evaluation report in April.
6. ECU trans guidance and recent queries – Gemma Tracey, ECU
=Gemma Tracey provided an update to the group on ECU’s trans guidance. The focus of the guidance will be on how institutions can effectively support staff and students. The guidance will include sections on areas ECU has recently received a number of enquiries, including student records, accommodation, and the provision of adjustments during transition.
=One area the group thought would be useful to provide guidance on was in relation to alumni, charging for changing records and ID requirements. There is currently some variation across the sector in how this is handled by different institutions.
=The group was also interested in practical ways to support students abroad, including on international campuses. International students studying at UK institutions also raise complications, as changing details may have implications for student visas.
=Gemma asked how many institutions presently used SITS (roughly half) and asked for case studies on developing relationships between equality and diversity functions and student records teams. Gemma also asked the group for examples on risk management in this area.
=The group also discussed transition action plans, noting that students tended not to like their use, as they incorporated a set process and could seem patronising.
Action:ECU to confirm a specific publication date with the group.
Action:SLG to send examples and case studies for Gemma to include in guidance.
7. Lead Scotland disabled student advice line – Rebecca Scarlett
=Rebecca shared an overview of Lead Scotland’s work and her role as Senior Policy Officer. Lead Scotland is a voluntary organisation set up to widen access to learning for disabled young people and adults and carers across Scotland. (MM noted that she is currently a board member of Lead.) Of particular note is the advice service offered by Lead and run by Rebecca. The guidance and advice often covers two key areas. One is access to funding and the intersection of HEI provision, SAAS funding and state welfare and benefits. The other is the provision of adjustments for students or applicants, and given the nature of the service, the university appeals or complaints process when people feel they may have experienced discrimination.
=Rebecca provided recent examples from the advice line that highlighted the value in enhanced communication with E&D leads and with disability services, and asked the group for email address for future contact. Members present consented to ECU sharing email contacts with Lead.
=Lead Scotland’s conference is on 9th June and Keith Smyth, from UHI, will be one of the speakers.
Action:ECU to circulate a request to group members not present to share email contacts with Lead.
8. HEA update
The group welcomed the update paper produced by the HEA.
=DB noted that the compendium of papers from the joint ECU and HEA conference has now been published and can be accessed online:
=Hard copies of the summary report are also available and members can email DB to request these.
=It was noted that the HEA’s research report ‘Whose job is it anyway?’ on what works in widening access for gender in Scotland has now been published as well.
Action: ECU to share link to ‘Whose job is it anyway?’
9. Universities Scotland update
The group welcomed the update paper produced by Universities Scotland.
Action: Universities Scotland to provide update on UUK Prevent work at next meeting.
10. Member updates
Each institution represented gave an update of current E&D activity highlights. Common themes included: high demand for Aurora places, activity revising equality outcomes, Athena Swan, Attracting Diversity, staff and student survey progress and results, and a few institutions considering the structure and management of E&D.
11. Next SLG meeting
=Dates of future meetings: 16th June, UWS (incorporating equality outcomes workshop); 6th October, University of Stirling.