Senate
Procedures for the approval,
monitoring and review of collaborative provision
Introduction
1. These procedures relate to collaborative arrangements
between
2. The procedures are intended to ensure that the high
reputation the University enjoys within the academic community and with
industrial partners is not prejudiced by any collaborative arrangements and
that its commitment to quality is maintained.
3. The University is accountable for the quality and
standards of all programmes and awards offered or made in its name which are
provided under collaborative arrangements.
The arrangements for assuring the standards of awards and qualifications
and the quality of what is offered to students through collaborative provision
must be as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those for programmes
provided wholly within the responsibility of the University.
Approval Stage 1: Outline proposal
4. Any proposal to enter into collaborative arrangements
with another organisation for the provision of programmes or modules of study
leading to awards, or to specific credit towards awards, of the University 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 or modules concerned might be expected to be located.
5. OPS will require an outline proposal to be provided at
the outset normally by the University department sponsoring the proposal. It is University policy normally to consider
collaborative provision, including validation arrangements, only in disciplines
in which it has subject expertise and the active and willing engagement of a
University department in a cognate subject area.
6. The outline should
provide sufficient information for the senior officers to assess the
overall standing of the partner organisation as well as the nature of the
particular collaborative provision proposed and any matters of principle it
might raise; it should give an indication of the resources that the partner
organisation will make available to support the collaboration and explain the
aims and objectives of the proposed collaboration and its compatibility with
the University's strategic plans; it should also explain how the collaboration
will fit into relevant faculty and departmental development plans, and indicate
how the arrangements will be supported at departmental level within the
University.
7. 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 prospective partner organisation before the
University embarks on a detailed consideration of a proposal.
8. If OPS or Senate is not supportive, the sponsoring
University department and the prospective partner will be informed at this
stage that the proposal will not be taken further.
9. If OPS is of the view that the collaboration 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.
Approval Stage
2: Detailed scrutiny
10. At this point, proposals will follow one of two parallel
routes, depending whether they involve validation or some other form of
collaboration. 'Validation' here denotes
the process by which the University as an awarding institution judges that a
programme (or module) of study developed and delivered by another institution
or organisation is of an appropriate quality and standard to lead to an award,
or to specific credit towards an award, of the University. In the case of validation, a validation panel
will be established to consider the proposal in detail and to report back to LTC
with recommendations; in other cases, a detailed proposal will be need to be
prepared for submission through the same approval process as any internal
University programme, which culminates in a report and recommendations being
made to LTC by Curriculum Sub-Committee.
Approval Stage 2A.
Validation proposals
11. 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 OPS.
12. LTC will then establish a Validation Panel to consider
the proposal in more detail and may in the light of its discussions and any
further consultations give guidance to the Panel on handling particular aspects
of the proposal.
13. The 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
14. Initially the Validation Panel will require from the organisation
seeking validation a detailed submission covering institutional and
programme-specific issues as listed below.
Having received and considered the detailed submission, the Validation
Panel will visit the organisation 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.
Institutional
Issues
15. 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 organisation
·
External reports
on the quality of provision in the organisation
·
Financial
viability of the organisation, 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
Programme specific issues
16. Information required for each programme proposed for
validation:
·
Programme
specification (normally using
·
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 organisations
·
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.
17. Following the visit, the Validation Panel will report and
make recommendations to LTC.
18. LTC, having considered the advice of the Validation
Panel, will determine whether or not to recommend to Senate that validation
proceed. Senate will in turn receive a
report from LTC and, if agreed, give final approval to the validation.
19. The University will charge a fee to the partner organisation
for the work of the Validation Panel in the light of the actual costs of the
exercise. LTC will advise Resources and
Planning Committee in respect to the fee to be charged. It will also report on any other resource
implications for the University.
Approval
Stage 2B. Other forms of collaborative
provision
20. In the case of other collaborative proposals, 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 OPS.
21. LTC will then instigate the preparation of more
detailed documentation for submission in accordance with normal University
procedures (Strategic Proposals), to the relevant Faculty Directorate
and Operations Sub-Committee, and subsequently Curriculum Sub-Committee (CSC). This task will normally be assigned to the
appropriate academic department but may be assigned to a task group on which
the appropriate academic department will be represented.
22. The Committee may in the light of its discussions and
any further consultations give guidance to the task group on handling
particular aspects of the proposal. Representatives
of the appropriate department or the working group may be asked by LTC to visit
the partner organisation and/or take external advice in compiling the
submission.
23. The documentation required in the case of a
collaborative proposal is analogous to that required in the case of a new
programme or module to be offered wholly within the responsibility of the
University. The programme costing
normally required for Operations Sub-Committee must be supported by details of
the proposed financial arrangements with the partner organisation in respect of
the collaboration. The financial
arrangements must satisfy any statutory or funding body requirements. The standard pro forma issued by the
Curriculum Sub-Committee should also be used and this must be accompanied by a Quality Assurance Statement (for which a template
is also available). This should
contain a clear and explicit statement of the respective responsibilities of
the University and the partner organisation for the following matters, with
details of how these responsibilities will be exercised on an ongoing basis:
·
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
·
Programme
management
·
Quality assurance
and control, including arrangements for student feedback and programme review,
and reviewing the proficiency of staff delivering the programme
·
Student support
and guidance
·
Student concerns,
complaints and appeals
·
Publicity and
marketing
·
Any award
ceremony
24. The Quality Assurance Statement will be submitted to
the Curriculum Sub-Committee with the other documentation required for a new programme
proposal.
25. CSC will in due course report to LTC and make a
recommendation whether or not the collaborative provision should be
approved. The Quality Assurance
Statement will be expected to accompany the CSC report.
26. LTC will in turn make a recommendation to Senate,
which, if agreed, will give final approval for the collaborative provision. Senate will expect to be assured that a
satisfactory Quality Assurance Statement has been received by LTC in respect of
any collaborative proposals.
Departmental support
27. In the case of validation, once Senate approves a
recommendation to proceed, 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.
28. 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 organisation.
29. 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 organisation
·
Advising staff in
the partner organisation 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 organisation 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.
30. In the case of other forms of collaborative provision,
the appropriate academic department will be responsible, through the respective
Faculty Board, for supporting the collaborative arrangements on an ongoing
basis in accordance with the Quality Assurance Statement.
Written agreement
31. Once a proposal for collaborative provision has been
approved, a formal agreement will be drawn up, to be signed by the
Vice-Chancellor and the Head of the partner organisation (or their nominees).
32. The agreement will include a clear and explicit
statement of the respective responsibilities of the University and the partner organisation,
including their responsibilities for all matters listed under paragraph 29
above.:
33. The agreement will include provision for termination
and arbitration and cover the residual obligations to students on termination
of the agreement.
34. The financial arrangements will be contained in the
agreement or in an accompanying Financial Memorandum. In the case of validation, these will include
the fees to be charged to the partner organisation for validation, normally on
a per capita basis, which will be reviewed annually in advance of the academic
session to which they relate.
35. Copies of the agreement will be lodged with the
Secretary to LTC.
Monitoring and review
36. The Faculty Board to which the collaborative provision
is assigned will be responsible for the regular evaluation of the programme/modules
concerned and monitoring of the associated quality assurance arrangements. This
will normally be undertaken through the University's standard annual and
periodic review procedures, unless indicated otherwise in the Quality Assurance
Statement and/or the formal agreement.
37. In the case of validated provision, the annual review
procedures will require the partner organisation 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. 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 organisation
and hold discussions with key programme staff and representatives of the
students.
38. The Faculty Board may request that an annual or
periodic programme review should encompass specific matters additional to those
normally required by LTC.
Changes in provision
39. All changes to existing collaborative provision,
including proposals to change programme or module specifications, or programme
regulations, 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 other University programmes. Proposals will be processed through the
University's standard approval mechanisms.
40. Any proposal to introduce a new programme of study in
collaboration with an existing partner should be submitted for approval through
the stages set out under paragraphs 4-26 above.
The same applies where a partner organisation in a validation agreement wishes
to propose further programmes for validation by the University.
41. An outline proposal will be required in each
case. This will be processed in the same
way as an outline proposal for a new collaboration, as described in Stage paragraphs
4-9 above, and, save for information on the nature of the organisation, should
provide the same information as set out in paragraph 6.
42. In the case of a new validated programme proposal,
once OPS or Senate has given in-principle approval for the proposal to go ahead,
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 organisation. Such a Validation Panel will be constituted
and proceed in accordance with paragraphs 13-16 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.
43. The formal agreement will be amended to incorporate
any additional collaborative provision with the same partner organisation following
approval by Senate.
Renewal of agreements
44. Collaborative agreements will normally be subject to
review and renewal on a five-year cycle.
45. The nature of the review to be undertaken prior to
renewal will normally be indicated in the formal agreement.
46. Before any validation agreement is renewed, the University
will carry out a full institutional and programme review, covering the issues
listed under paragraphs 15 and 16 above.
This will be undertaken by a Validation Review Panel with the same
constitution as the Panel referred to in paragraph 13. 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.
47. 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.
48. The University will charge a fee to the partner organisation
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.
Variation of procedures
49. 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.
Date
– October 2007
Copyright
© Loughborough University. All rights
reserved.