University of Newcastle Responding to risk in higher education: the Student Ombudsman as a catalyst for systemic change Dr Deborah Peach Student Ombudsman Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Australia Ms Miriam Dayhew University Ombudsman Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga, Australia National Conference September 28-29 2017 University of Newcastle

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is an independent statutory authority established in 2011. It sits within the Education portfolio. TEQSA registers and evaluates the performance of higher education providers against the Higher Education Standards Framework - specifically, the Threshold Standards, which all providers must meet in order to enter and remain within Australia’s higher education system.

Higher Education Standards Framework 7 Major Domains Student Participation and Attainment Learning Environment Teaching Research and Research Training Institutional Quality Assurance Governance and Accountability Representation, Information and Information Management http://www.teqsa.gov.au

2.2 Learning Environment 2.1 Facilities and Infrastructure 2.3 Wellbeing and Safety 2.2 Diversity and Equity 2.4 Student Grievances and Complaints

2.4 Student Grievances and Complaints 1. Access to mechanisms to resolve grievances effectively 2. Timely resolution 3. Without charge/fee 4. Consistently applied 5. Confidentiality 6. Advocacy 7. Support 8. Independent 9. Third party 10. Recorded 11. Informed in writing 12. Further avenues of appeal 13. Action required is initiated promptly

QUT Student Ombudsman contributions to systemic change HES Domain Issues/Systemic Change 1. Student Participation and Attainment general admissions, English language requirements, advance standing, course progression, exclusion, attendance, assessment, work integrated learning, review of grade, supplementary examination, special consideration, academic integrity, grade point average, graduation/parchment, withdrawal without academic/financial penalty 2. Learning Environment behaviour: staff (academic & professional) & student, student discipline, financial & fee issues 3. Teaching timetable, teaching and learning, learning resources, support, work integrated learning, HDR supervision 4. Research and Research Training supervision 5. Institutional Quality Assurance course progression 6. Governance and Accountability attendance, letter of release Representation, Information and Information Management post census changes, fees, timetable

CSU University Ombudsman contributions to systemic change HES Domain Issues/Systemic Change (students) 1. Student Participation and Attainment admission – highly competitive course often give rise to complaints credit & RPL – not a transparent process orientation & progress – particularly failure to progress learning outcomes & assessment qualifications & certification 2. Learning Environment diversity & equity – recognition of flexibility of reasonable adjustment 3. Teaching learning resources & educational support 4. Research and Research Training supervision – relationships and support expectations 5. Institutional Quality Assurance course approval & accreditation corporate governance; corporate monitoring & accountability; academic governance 6. Governance and Accountability Representation, Information and Information Management timeliness; data management i.e. security, sharing, privacy

Responding to risk: CSU Subject Management Processes An example of the University Ombudsman alerting Faculty/School staff to emerging issues Several student complaints received regarding the delayed availability of teaching & learning resources. This was confirmed with a further cluster of complaints regarding marking and feedback for assessable materials from the same subject. University Ombudsman coordinated response to complaints and collaborated with the Head of School who instituted a performance management approach with the lead academic. University Ombudsman negotiated alternative options for students including: taking subject over mid-session with a small team of senior academics; alternate assessment; opportunity to withdraw without penalty and re-enrol in the following teaching session.

Responding to risk: CSU Special Admission Exemption Exposing statutory breaches through complaints process Non-indigenous student was offered and accepted admission into an industry specific program developed for Aboriginal Health Workers. The offer was subsequently withdrawn once the applicant was identified as non- indigenous. The applicant lodged a claim of racial discrimination with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). The University Ombudsman investigated the matter and determined that special exemption for admission to the program did not exist. The University Ombudsman in collaboration with the Program Director successfully applied for a ten year exemption allowing special admission criteria based on indigeneity. The AHRC accepted this as a resolution for the initiating complaint. A further benefit of this process has been the identification of a potential student cohort of non-indigenous students who desire to study indigenous specific, or sensitive, health support programs and an opportunity for course development is being investigated.

Responding to risk: QUT Fitness to study 2015 Student Ombudsman initiated stakeholder discussions regarding students with chronic health conditions and impact of some university policy and processes (e.g. assessment extensions, special consideration, withdrawal without penalty). Issues identified included timing, evidence required, increased confusion/anxiety. What can university do for individual cases falling outside ‘standard’ policy & process parameters? 2016 University established a Concessions Working Party to investigate these concerns. What changes might be made to policy & process? How can students be better informed about documentary evidence requirements? 2017 University established a Working Party to investigate cases where usual support mechanisms are not adequate, and where misconduct or academic progress action is not an appropriate tool to support and manage a student with disruptive/unsafe/disturbing behaviors. Is a policy required to manage the few cases? Should a case management and team intervention approach be formalised ?

Responding to risk: QUT Level 2 Cases – University Wide As part of TEQSA internal monitoring the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor initiated an independent gap analysis of academic governance processes. The Student Ombudsman was asked to contribute to the analysis.     Independent reviewer recommendations: Designation of when a complaint is formal. Systematic analysis of formal complaints for any quality management issues and that while it is acknowledged this is undertaken for appeals and those complaints handled by the QUT Student Ombudsman, the same practice should be applied to all other misconduct committees and to other handlers of formal complaints (e.g. within Faculties).    Student Ombudsman subsequently initiated discussion with senior staff about current processes and possible improvements. How are student complaints documented, escalated, collated at Faculty/Divisional level?