12 new actions have been achieved, including menopause training for line managers, LGBTQUA+ careers events for students, the wheelchair challenge, the EDI Festival, Rainbow Alliance Network, gender neutral toilets.
Monitoring the 2017 action plan The 2017AP is monitored by the AO and discussed with the SAT chair. Annual updates are provided to EDIC and at department meetings. The actions in the 2017AP are owned by a range of actors, who report their work in different ways. There are various indicators of progress. o Progress on actions owned by theme leads is reviewed at theme-lead catch ups. o Progress towards several targets is visible through normal reporting lines, e.g., student recruitment, promotion, and staff recruitment. o Following university run surveys, results are analysed against actions. o Progress on other actions is requested and tracked using an Excel version of the 2017AP. We are exploring platforms for publicly hosting the 2023AP. Whilst most colleagues feel the school ‘ actively promotes equality, diversity and inclusion ’ (78.4%), this might be higher if all staff could view progress at a glance. Assessing progress Progress is regularly assessed by action owners, the AO, and the SAT chair. The RAG ratings presented in this submission reflect the view of the SAT. For some actions, evidence of achievement was straightforward. We have recruited a female professor of practice [4.2.3] and increased the number of female professors [4.2.2]. Evidence of achievements beyond 2017AP was often similarly unproblematic. We committed to running a national symposium [3.3.1] but went on to establish a national network. We have been careful not to overclaim. In 2016/17 a gender gap started to appear, with female UG students becoming less likely to achieve first class marks [4.1.4]. We proceeded through the milestones and outputs, but the immediate turnaround meant the action most likely took care of itself. Female participation on PGT SSLCs [4.1.6] has balanced, due to our activities, and most likely factors beyond our control. We mark such actions achieved but sound a note of caution. The SAT didn’t agree in all cases. The 2017AP commits to ‘improving the current workload model (ABM) reporting and analysis’ [5.6.4]. Within the period, our software developers made significant improvements; they produced the ‘ABM calculator’ that measures the school-wide impact of any changes to workload tariffs. When SMG considered proposals to change workload tariffs, we were able to perform an EIA that showed female staff would enjoy a marginal benefit. For some this wa s ‘sector leading’. Others felt the action was partially achieved. For them, it imagines a schoolwide practice whereby workload is analysed by gender each year, before being reported to HoGs to shape their planning. Whilst we have developed the capability to do this, reporting is patchy across groups. Where there was disagreement, we have rated the action amber.
16
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog