Validation Procedure

 

 

A          OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURE

 

1.                  Any proposal to validate programmes in another institution will initially be discussed by the Operations Sub-Committee (OPS), which includes the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) and the Dean of the Faculty in which the programmes might be expected to be located.  Their consideration will include the overall standing of the institution seeking validation and the nature of the particular programmes proposed for validation, as well as any matters of principle raised by the proposal.  In the case of a major strategic proposal, OPS may set up a project group to undertake further work on the proposal, and/or refer the proposal to Senate for approval in principle, before subsequent steps in the procedures outlined in this document are taken.  Any proposal to validate additional programmes at an existing partner institution will also be referred to OPS in the first instance.

 

2.                  If OPS is of the view that a proposal should be pursued, it will inform the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) accordingly. 

 

3.                  The normal expectation is that LTC will then establish a Validation Panel to give detailed consideration to the proposal and advise whether validation is appropriate.  The Panel will call for a wide range of information from the institution seeking validation and visit the institution.

 

4.                  The Validation Panel will subsequently report to LTC, which in turn will make a recommendation to Senate whether or not validation should proceed.

 

5.                  Once Senate has approved a recommendation to proceed with validation, a formal agreement will be drawn up between the University and the partner institution.  Validation agreements will normally be subject to review and renewal on a five-year cycle. 

 

6.                  Senate will delegate academic oversight of each validated programme to a Faculty Board and designate a cognate academic department to support the programme validation arrangements on an ongoing basis.  The Faculty  Board will be responsible during the period of the agreement for monitoring the programme on a regular basis, through the University's standard annual and periodic programme review procedures. 

 

7.         The steps outlined here are elaborated below.

 

B         CONSIDERATION BY SENIOR OFFICERS AND LTC

 

1.                  OPS will require an outline proposal to be provided at the outset by the prospective partner and/or by the internal proposer(s).  This should  provide sufficient information for the senior officers to assess the nature of the institution and the particular programme or programmes to be validated, give an indication of the resources that the partner organisation has available to deliver the programme(s) and explain the aims and objectives of the proposed validation and its compatibility with the University's strategic plans.  It is University policy normally to consider validation only in disciplines in which it has subject expertise and the active and willing engagement of a University department in a cognate subject area.  The outline proposal should also explain how the validation will fit into faculty and departmental development plans, and indicate how the validation will be supported at departmental level within the University.  It should also provide sufficient information to allow any matters of principle to be identified and explored.

 

2.                  In the case of a major strategic proposal, OPS may set up a project group to undertake further work on the proposal, arrange for the financial viability of the proposal to be assessed, and/or refer the proposal to Senate for approval in principle, before subsequent steps in the procedures outlined in this document are taken.  Exceptionally, a proposal may trigger the OPS approval procedures for major projects and be handled accordingly.  OPS may recommend that an initial consultation fee be charged to the institution seeking validation before the University embarks on a detailed consideration of a proposal.

 

3.                  If OPS or Senate is not supportive, the prospective partner and/or internal proposer(s) will be informed at this stage that the validation proposal will not be taken further.

 

4.         If OPS is of the view that validation should be pursued, and Senate, if requested, has given in-principle approval, the outline proposal, together with any relevant additional information now amassed, will be referred to LTC with a recommendation that the Committee proceed to a more detailed consideration of the issues involved.

 

5.                  The normal expectation is that at this stage LTC will establish a Validation Panel to undertake this work.

 

6.                  LTC will first review the outline proposal and any additional information provided in order to assure itself that any matters of principle or issues that might give cause for concern can be handled satisfactorily, and may if necessary consult further with the EMG.

 

7.         The Committee may in the light of its discussions and any further consultations give guidance to the Panel on handling particular aspects of the proposal.  

 

C         VALIDATION PANEL

 

1.         A Validation Panel will be constituted as follows:

 

                        Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) (Chair)

                        Relevant Deans or their nominees

                        A member of Senate appointed by the Vice-Chancellor

                        A member of LTC appointed by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) or alternatively a second member of Senate appointed by the Vice-Chancellor

Programme Development & Quality Team Manager

 

2.         Initially the Validation Panel will require from the institution seeking validation a detailed submission covering institutional and programme-specific issues.  Having received and considered the detailed submission, the Validation Panel will visit the institution seeking validation.  The Chair of the Validation Panel will arrange for appropriate subject specialists, either from within or where necessary from outside the University, to advise the Panel and participate as appropriate in its deliberations.

 

3.         Institutional Issues

 

            Information required:

 

·         Information in regard to any previous validation procedures

·         The date from which validation will operate

·         Title, level and duration of programmes to be validated

·         Entry requirements and standards

·         Arrangements for credit accumulation and transfer

·         Assessment and examination procedures and standards, including sight of any external assessors' reports

·         Regulatory framework for HE programmes in the institution

·         Quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms in the institution

·         External reports on the quality of provision in the institution

·         Financial viability of the institution, including audited accounts for the previous five years

·         Funding arrangements and tuition fees for the programmes to be validated

·         Management and governance structures

·         Strategic plan

·         Learning and teaching strategy

·         Human resources strategy and staff development arrangements

·         Health and safety arrangements

·         Data protection practice

·         Student complaints procedures

·         Equal opportunities policies

·         In the case of international partnerships, any specific legal, regulatory, professional or cultural issues relating to HE in the country concerned

 

4.         Programme specific issues

 

            Information required for each programme proposed for validation:

 

·         Programme specification (normally using Loughborough University’s template), including programme aims, intended learning outcomes, structure and requirements

·         Full module specifications, including in each case aims, intended learning outcomes, contents, modular weighting, level, methods of teaching and learning, methods of feedback, methods of assessment

·         A reading list for each module

·         Programme regulations

·         Staffing for the programme, including balance between full-time and part-time staff

·         Curricula vitae of teaching staff

·         A statement nominating one specific member of staff as Programme Director

·         Student intake and sources of recruitment

·         Competition from other institutions

·         Employment prospects of graduates

·         Availability of space and equipment including lecture room and laboratory facilities, computing support, use of e-learning

·         Library facilities

·         Availability of administrative, technical and other support staff

·         Views of external examiners, assessors, professional/industrial bodies etc.

 

5.                  Following the visit, the Validation Panel will report to LTC and make a recommendation whether or not validation should proceed.

 

6.         The University will charge a fee to the partner institution for the work of the Validation Panel in the light of the actual costs of the exercise. 

 

D         LTC AND SENATE

 

1.         Having received the advice of the Validation Panel, LTC will determine whether or not to recommend to Senate that validation proceed.

 

2.         The Committee will also advise Resources and Planning Committee in respect to the fee to be charged for the initial validation exercise.  It will also report on any other resource implications for the University.

 

3.         Senate will in turn consider a report from LTC.  Once Senate approves a recommendation to proceed with validation, it will assign responsibility for each validated programme to a Faculty Board and designate a cognate academic department to support the programme validation arrangements on an ongoing basis.

 

E          WRITTEN AGREEMENT

 

1.                  Once Senate has approved a recommendation to proceed with validation, a formal agreement will be drawn up, to be signed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Head of the partner institution (or their nominees).

 

2.                  The agreement will include a clear and explicit statement of the respective responsibilities of the University and the partner institution, including their responsibilities for the following matters:

 

·         Student entry requirements and the handling of admissions

·         Student registration and maintenance of student records

·         Determination and collection of student fees

·         The delivery of learning and teaching

·         The conduct of assessments

·         External Examining procedures, including the appointment of an external examiner/programme assessor, communications with and functions of the external examiner/programme assessor and reporting procedure

·         The issue of certificates and transcripts

·         Resource issues including staffing, teaching accommodation, Library material and computing support

·         Staff training and development

·         Quality assurance and control, including arrangements for student feedback

·         Student support and guidance

·         Student concerns, complaints and appeals

·         Publicity and marketing

·         Any award ceremony.

 

3.                  The agreement will include provision for termination and arbitration and cover the residual obligations to students on termination of the agreement.

 

4.                  The financial arrangements will be contained in the agreement or in an accompanying Financial Memorandum.  These will include the fees to be charged to the partner institution for validation, normally on a per capita basis.  These will be reviewed annually in advance of the academic session to which they relate.

 

5.                  Copies of the agreement will be lodged with the Secretary to LTC.

 

F          DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT

 

1.         The cognate University department designated to support the programme validation arrangements will be expected to nominate a member of academic staff to act as link-person with the programme team in the partner institution.

 

2.         The department is expected, primarily through the nominated the link-person, to assume responsibility for providing, at minimum, the following support:

·            Liaison over the appointment of external examiner(s) for the programme: normally extending the remit of one or more of the department’s existing externals

·            Attendance at programme boards in the partner institution

·            Advising staff in the partner institution about academic standards including the marking of student work: this might entail sampling the marking of a range of work at different levels of the programme

·            Invitations to the staff in the partner institution to observe practice in the department by attending meetings/events

·            Helping to identify staff development needs

·            Offering advice on programme design and content, and on methods of teaching, learning and assessment (taking care not to assume the approval role of the AD(T) in respect of programme changes)

·            Inputting to APR/PPR processes

·            Offering comment on information provided for students.

 

G         REVIEW PROCEDURES

 

1.                  The Faculty Board to which the validated programme is assigned will be responsible for the regular evaluation of the programme and monitoring of the associated quality assurance arrangements.   This will be undertaken through the University's standard annual and periodic review procedures as required by LTC.

 

2.                  The annual review procedures will require the partner institution itself, through an appropriate internal body, to review the provision being validated, to involve the Associate Dean (Teaching) of the Faculty in a summative meeting of the review body, and to report through the AD(T) to the Faculty Board. 

 

3.                  Periodic programme review, normally scheduled on a five-year cycle, is undertaken by an independent panel, appointed by the University and including an external assessor, which will visit the partner institution and hold discussions with key programme staff and representatives of the students.

 

4.                  The Faculty Board may request that an annual or periodic programme review should encompass specific matters additional to those required by LTC.

 

H         CHANGES IN VALIDATED PROVISION

 

1.                  All changes to existing validated programmes, including proposals to change programme regulations or module specifications or to introduce new modules, will be required to be submitted for approval through the appropriate AD(T) in a form analogous to that required at the time for changes to internal University programmes.  Proposals will be processed through the University's standard approval mechanisms.

 

2.                  The partner institution in a validation agreement may propose further programmes for validation by the University, subject to compliance with the University’s policy on collaborative programmes.  An outline proposal will be required in each case.  This will be processed in the same way as an outline proposal for a new validation, as described in Section B above, and, save for information on the nature of the institution, should provide the same information as set out in B.1. 

 

3.                  Once OPS or Senate has given in-principle approval for a new validated programme proposal to go ahead, the outline proposal, together with any additional information, will be referred to LTC with a recommendation that the Committee proceed to a more detailed consideration of the proposal.  At this point, LTC may at its discretion determine whether to allow the proposal to be processed through the University's standard approval mechanisms (ie through Curriculum Sub-Committee) or to establish a Validation Panel to consider it.  A Validation Panel will normally be established if the proposed programme is in a different subject area from programmes previously validated by the University at the partner institution.  Such a Validation Panel will be constituted and proceed in accordance with Section C above, reporting to LTC.  The Panel will be concerned mainly with issues specific to the new programme but can be expected to seek an update on institutional issues since the last validation visit. 

 

4.                  The validation agreement will be amended to incorporate any additional validated programmes following their acceptance by Senate.

 

I           RENEWAL OF VALIDATION

 

1.                  Validation agreements will normally be subject to review and renewal on a five-year cycle.

 

2.                  Before any agreement is renewed, the University will carry out a full institutional and programme review, covering the issues listed under Sections C.3 and C.4 above.  This will be undertaken by a Validation Review Panel with the same constitution as the Panel referred to in Section C.1.

 

3.                  The Validation Review Panel will also receive reports of annual and periodic programme reviews undertaken during the period of the existing validation agreement and may, in the light of any recent periodic programme review, reduce its requirements in respect of programme specific information.

 

4.                  The Validation Review Panel will report to LTC, which will in turn report and make recommendations to Senate and also advise the responsible Faculty Board of its conclusions.

 

5.                  The University will charge a fee to the partner institution for the validation review.  The Validation Review Panel will make a recommendation concerning the fee to be charged in its report to LTC in the light of the actual costs of the exercise.

 

J          VARIATION OF PROCEDURES

 

1.         The Vice-Chancellor as Chair of Senate shall have the right to vary any of the procedures outlined above should circumstances demand this.  Such variations will be reported to the next meeting of Senate.