Dear Tracey,
Thanks for your request. It seems to me that this issue of Monitoring
Categories, defined by racial group, is causing a bit of a challenge to
quite a number of us in the HE Sector, so I hope you do not mind me putting
it out to the sector at large, for everyone's benefit.
My advice to you, and everyone else who is having similar challenges is
that:
1. The RRAA Code of practice has defined the categories that we all should
be using and this is the minimum we can do. The good thing about this is
that the advice in the Code can/should/will be exceeded by institutions, due
to the fact that we have overseas students and/or staff whose categories
might not already be defined but who nonetheless come under the RRAA General
and Specific Duties. It is under these circumstances that we will have to
"write in" the other additional racial group categories in order for us to
function under the requirements of both the General and Specific Duties of
the RRAA.
2. My advice is that in order for us to ensure we monitor in a way that
satisfies the requirements of the RRAA (this is also a legal obligation)and
the needs of HESA and UCAS, we should use the CRE recommended categories on
page68 of the Ethnic Monitoring Guide. This will also ensure that any other
data required will inevitably be nestled within the data that we collect, if
we use these CRE recommended categories. This also means we will only have
to do it once in order to satisfy everybody's needs, especially our
statutory obligations.
3. My answer to Louisa's query (refer below) also further explains what and
how we need to be looking at,concerning the monitoring categories issue.
I hope this answers your questions. If not, please feel free to give me a
ring and I we can discuss the best way forward on your query.
Ilook forward to hearing from you, either way.
Regards
Mannie
P.S. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT "AFRO" IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE, THE APPROPRIATE
ADJECTIVE IS NOW "AFRICAN". SO AFRO-CARIBBEAN SHOULD BE AFRICAN OR BLACK
CARIBBEAN.
Mannie Kusemamuriwo
Policy Adviser: Ethnicity & Cultural Diversity
Equality Challenge Unit
3rd Floor, Tavistock Place
London WC1H 9RA
Tel 020 7520 7060
Fax 020 7520 7069
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer, Tracey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 February 2002 12:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: Willcock, Susan; Reynolds, Liz; Burns, Diane
Subject: FW: Ethnic Monitoring
Hi Emmanuell,
I've been forwarded an email of yours (see below), which
makes me think you might be a good person to advise on a problem
we've been grappling with here at SHU.
The problem is that in 2001 UCAS added new categories to the
data they collect on ethnicity::
Reporting categories: Sub-groups (those groups new for
2001 are shown in brackets)
White White British
White Irish
White Other
Afro-Caribbean Black Caribbean
Black
African
Black Other
(Black and
White Caribbean)
(Black and
White African)
Chinese Chinese
Asian Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Other Asian
(White and
Asian)
Other and Unknown Other
Unknown
(Other
Mixed)
What categories would you suggest we report on and how would
you suggest we continue our trend analysis? That is which of
the new categories should we amalgamate together to arrive at groupings akin
to the more limited categories used previously. For example do
you have a feel for how the majority of those who in 2001 considered
themselves 'White and Asian' would have categorised themselves were
this choice not available? I'm guessing they would have chosen one of the
other Asian categories so that it's OK to add them to the all
encompassing 'Asian' group?
Obviously when we have more years data i.e. providing that
UCAS don't change again when we get data for 2003 entry, we will
switch to reporting on the new improved categories!
Diane, I'd also really appreciate your views.
Tracey Spencer
Planning Support
Sheffield Hallam University
0114 225 2135.
-----Original Message-----
From: Campbell, Lorna
Sent: 12 February 2002 09:47
To: Spencer, Tracey
Cc: Roebuck, Karen
Subject: FW: Ethnic Monitoring
Good morning Tracey
This may be useful information in the context of the issue
you have about ethnic minority catergorisation of students.
Regards
Lorna Campbell
Human Resources Manager
Sheffield Hallam University
Howard Street, Sheffield, S1 1WB
Tel: 0114 225 2056
Fax: 0114 225 3957
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuell Kusemamuriwo
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
Sent: 11 February 2002 19:32
To: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ethnic Monitoring
Dear Louisa,
Thank you for your request and I hope my
response will be of assistance am also putting it out onto other
colleagues who might find these issues on RRAA AND HESA Monitoring
Categories useful, since it has been one of those widely asked questions.
Indeed some might want to ask/contribute further useful questions based on
what we are discussing. I certainly hope you do not mind.
While the HESA categories are the revised
categories that HESA recommends under the census 2001
specifications, I would strongly advise you to use the Commission for Racial
Equality amended categories on page 68 of the Ethnic Monitoring
Guide, for the following reasons:
1. They are clearer than the HESA recommendations in
that they enable your institution to expand your monitoring base
and not be restricted. The Code's recommendations are only a bare minimum
and institutions are allowed to expand their categories. This is
an advantage given that institutions might find that they need to record
different categories which might not necessarily be included in the
HESA recommendations. Moreover any extra categories you use will still have
the HESA ones nestled within them. You will therefore still be
able to provide HESA with what they need while at the same time you will not
fall short of the RRAA requirements.
2. The HESA categories do not instruct you to "write
in" the other categories that are not defined. This will not only
fall short of the RRAA Specific Duty of monitoring by racial group
categories, but also distort your monitoring picture by only monitoring
some of your racial groups and not all, as instructed by the Code. It would
therefore defeat the whole reason why you are monitoring in the
first place. We also need to remember that HEIs are likely to have a
significant number of overseas students and staff who will have to be
accurately monitored and also will need to have any policy impact accurately
assessed, by racial group, in order for you to maintain your
race equality policy and race equality - proof your relevant institutional
functions under both the Specific and General Duties of the RRAA.
3. As a start, I would also suggest you look at
re-classifying all your staff and students under the new categories,
otherwise how are you going to start reflecting the true institutional
picture, by racial group.In other words, after 31 May 2002, how are
you going to start to implement the Monitoring and Impact Assessment
specific duties, relative to the advice of the Code.
The above three, I believe, are the main
issues to take into consideration as you look to implement the
Specific Duties and ensure that your institution is functioning under the
requirements of the three elements of the RRAA General Duty.
If you have any further queries, please do
not hesitate to get back as soon as you need to.
I look forward to your comments.
Regards
Mannie.
Mannie Kusemamuriwo
Policy Adviser: Ethnicity & Cultural Diversity
Equality Challenge Unit
3rd Floor, Tavistock Place
London WC1H 9RA
Tel 020 7520 7060
Fax 020 7520 7069
[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Louisa de Beaufort
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
Sent: 08 February 2002 15:35
To: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Ethnic Monitoring
I would be grateful if you would look at the
HESA circular and relate it to the demands of the RRAA
requirements.
Fax to follow.
Many thanks,
Louisa
----------------------
Louisa de Beaufort
0207 848 3470
|