chapter 9 procedural framework for collaborative provision€¦ · 9.1.1 collaborative provision is...

Chapter 9

Procedural Framework for Collaborative Provision

116 Academic Quality Handbook 2019/20

9. PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 Collaborative provision is a term used to describe academic credit or academic programmes

of study delivered outside the University for which the University has either full or partial responsibility. Such provision is delivered through collaborative partnerships with other institutions (‘partner institutions’).

9.1.2 The University’s approach to collaborative partnerships is governed by its collaborative

provision strategy and is based on the following principles: • that collaborative partnerships shall be academically-driven, and designed to support both

partners in developing capability, creating new knowledge and increasing intellectual capital. In turn, this focus on academically-driven partnership should create opportunities for the development of multilateral collaborative networks involving more than one collaborative partner;

• that all collaborative provision shall be associated with cognate provision within the

University. It is only through such ‘academic anchoring’ that provision will be capable of generating the kinds of mutual academic benefit, and developing the communities of scholars, that are intended to be a unique feature of collaborative provision within the University;

• that the precise nature of individual collaborative partnerships shall take account of the

partner institution’s capacity and academic maturity, and may develop over time; • that any arrangements made shall not be in contravention of the laws, agreements,

understandings or principles which are in force within the country or region of the collaboration or are local to the partner institution or apply in respect of any third party involved in the collaboration;

• that decisions to establish new collaborative partnerships are the responsibility of the

Senate and must be informed by detailed and extensive due diligence; • that the University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its

name. The standards achieved by students who are successful in completing collaborative programmes shall be equivalent to the standards achieved by students who are successful on programmes at the University;

• that the University shall ensure that the quality of learning opportunities on collaborative

programmes exceed the minimum of acceptable threshold levels at the time of initial validation and that suitable quality enhancement procedures are in place throughout the life of the programme;

• that programmes of study that share the same award title shall have the same main

educational aims and programme outcomes; • that any charges made in relation to the University’s collaborative provision as a whole

will, as a minimum, cover costs incurred by the University in the fulfilment of its associated duties;

• that the processes developed to support collaborative provision shall be informed by

sector best practice, and take account of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education published by QAA and the relevant UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance.


9.2 Types of partnership and modes of provision 9.2.1 Within this overall context, the University has two types of collaborative partnerships:

• Structural partnerships, within which there is a formal, structural relationship where academic and mission goals are shared. Structural partnerships are likely to include some or all of the following: partnership representation on key University committees and vice versa; the sharing of academic staff (with staff from the University sometimes contributing to programme delivery and other academic activity at the partner institution and vice versa); and the two-way sharing of other resources (including, for example, physical and virtual electronic resources). Structural partners are also referred to as Constituent Colleges.

• Programme partnerships, in which the primary focus of the engagement is the management and delivery of specified academic programmes. Within such partnerships, joint activity is limited to areas that are necessary in order to enable the University to maintain appropriate central oversight of the provision, and so meet its responsibilities in relation to quality and the academic standards of awards. Partner institutions in programme partnerships may be designated Associate Colleges of the University if they meet the required criteria and are approved by the University Council (Appendix CP13).

9.2.2 Within this typology of partnership relationship, five modes of provision are possible1:

• Dual award provision - in which, on the successful completion of programmes, separate and distinct qualifications are awarded by the partner institution and by the University respectively.

• Validation provision - in which curricula are developed by the partner institution’s staff, in liaison with the University’s staff, for approval by the University.

• Franchise provision - in which a partner institution adopts existing University curricula, either in their entirety or with some permitted degree of flexibility in modifying the content.

• Off-campus provision - in which University staff deliver and assess a programme of the University in a partner institution. Delivery may be supported through the provision of academic, pastoral and/or administrative support by the partner institution’s staff. In common terminology, such partnerships may also be described as ‘tutor-supported’ or ‘outreach’ partnerships.

• Articulation links - in which students at the partner institution have direct entry with advanced standing into specified programmes of the University.

9.2.3 The modes of provision are based on the recognition that partner institutions may be at different stages in their academic (and organisational) development and may have different reasons for seeking a partnership with the University. The University’s approach to collaborative provision is designed to ensure that new collaborative partnerships are based on a mode of provision appropriate to the partner institution, but with scope for development as the partnership matures. It is possible for different modes of provision to be approved in a single partner institution.

9.2.4 The University may also offer postgraduate research degrees in collaboration with a partner institution. The specific arrangements governing the approval of research degrees within collaborative partnerships are provided in section 9.13.

1 In addition, with the approval of Senate, the University can offer joint awards with other appropriate institutions.


9.3 Responsibilities

9.3.1 Responsibility for the approval of the University’s collaborative provision, and for the maintenance of the academic quality and standards of that provision, rests with Senate. The Senior Management Team (SMT) is responsible for making recommendations to Senate on strategic developments relating to the academic portfolio, including new locations of study. The Academic Standards Committee (ASC) is responsible for managing the approval and review of programmes of study, and for the monitoring and evaluation of their standards and quality. The International Affairs and Collaborative Partnerships Committee (IACPC) is responsible for managing the approval and review of partnerships and the evaluation of their effectiveness. In carrying out these responsibilities, SMT, ASC and IACPC work closely together. In addition, IACPC may designate some of its responsibilities to sub-committees or working groups. Where collaborative partnerships include the provision of postgraduate research degrees, the Research Degrees Committee (RDC) is responsible for monitoring the progress of individual students. Within Institutes, the Institute Boards are responsible for maintaining an overview of collaborative provision linked to the Institute.

9.3.2 In terms of the executive structure, overall management responsibility for collaborative provision rests with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). Central oversight of collaborative partnerships is managed by the Heads of Collaborative Partnerships, supported by the Collaborative Partnerships Office. Within Institutes, overall responsibility for the collaborative portfolio lies with the Dean, who will determine the most appropriate operational process to ensure academic oversight and effective management, in accordance with the nature and extent of the collaborative portfolio. Partnership Team Leaders are responsible for ongoing liaison with partner institutions at programme level, drawing issues to the attention of the relevant officers and committees as appropriate; they also engage with Academic Discipline leaders, Programme Managers and Institute administrators to facilitate the management and operation of programmes offered collaboratively. Details of the responsibilities associated with the roles of Partnership Team Leaders are provided in section 9.10.

9.4 Processes

9.4.1 In the context of this framework, the University’s key processes for managing its collaborative

partnerships are: • initial consideration, including investigation, risk assessment and due diligence; • partnership approval; • programme validation and approval; • provision of appropriate academic and related support; • monitoring; • review.

9.4.2 These processes have been developed in the light of sector best practice, the UK Quality Code for Higher Education published by QAA and the UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: Partnerships.

9.5 Initial consideration, including investigation, risk assessment and due diligence 9.5.1 The process of initiating a new partnership may start with an approach from the prospective

partner, or may be initiated by the University. Individuals and Institutes are required to inform SMT of any exploratory discussions, and are advised to make use of the expertise available through the Collaborative Partnerships Office and, where relevant, the Academic Office. Where the initial contact is from outside an Institute, the Institute with responsibility for the programme area should be involved at as early opportunity as possible. Where the potential partnership may involve more than one Institute, a nominated Institute will lead the process. No commitments to the prospective partner institution may be made at this stage.


9.5.2 At the point at which a Institute, or an individual, wishes to register a firm proposal for

collaboration, it submits Form CP1 (Appendix CP1), which includes a risk assessment and initial costing, to SMT (Form CP1 is also used to propose a new delivery centre for an existing programme at a partner, see paragraph 9.9.1). The proposal includes a clear indication of the mode of provision envisaged in the first instance. Submission of Form CP1 is encouraged at an early stage and does not commit the University to any further development. At this stage, the prospective partner institution should be provided with a copy of the University’s Procedural Framework for Collaborative Provision, so that a clear understanding of requirements is established. The process for proposals for articulation links is outlined in section 9.14.

9.5.3 Following consideration of Form CP1, SMT takes one of the following decisions: • to approve the proposal for due diligence and detailed costing and to forward the proposal

to the Due Diligence Standing Group to progress;

• to approve the proposal for further investigation at the appropriate time;

• to ask for further information, clarification or discussion;

• not to approve the proposal.

9.5.4 SMT will not approve a proposal from an individual member of the academic staff without the support of their Academic Discipline lead and Dean of Institute, and without being satisfied that there are no inappropriate conflicts of interest.

9.5.5 SMT will be seeking evidence of the following attributes in prospective partners to inform its decision:

• academic culture and values closely aligned, at institutional and programme levels, to

those of the University;

• well-defined and credible academic development aspirations which cohere with those of the University;

• desired provision in one or more areas of academic interest which are cognate with those

offered within the University;

• desired provision which does not pose a conflict of interest with an existing collaborative partnership;

• demonstrable academic achievements in the field of scholarly activity;

• experience of delivering programmes at the level of the proposed provision;

• the potential to create a partnership which is capable of delivering clear academic benefits for the University;

• an ability to meet due diligence requirements.

9.5.6 In the event that SMT approves the proposal for further investigation, a preliminary visit to the prospective partner institution may be undertaken by one or more senior officers of the University in order to determine whether the institution has the desired profile of a partner institution. The outcome of the preliminary visit is reported in writing to SMT, which then takes one of the decisions listed above, paragraph 9.5.3.


9.5.7 In the event that SMT approves the proposal for due diligence and detailed costing, the activities undertaken are in four parts:

• Legal due diligence, to establish the statutory and constitutional framework governing the

operation of the prospective partner institution and its capacity to enter into a legal agreement with the University. This activity will normally be overseen by the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Corporate and Quality), who will provide advice on whether or not the findings are satisfactory.

• Financial due diligence, to establish whether the prospective partner institution is of sound

financial standing and has the capacity to meet the financial obligations of a partnership with the University. This activity will normally be overseen by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Finance and Planning), who will provide advice on whether or not the findings are satisfactory.

• Academic due diligence, to establish whether the prospective partner institution is of good

academic standing and has experience appropriate to the proposed collaboration. In respect of overseas institutions, this will include consulting as appropriate with the British Council and relevant government agencies. Where appropriate, it will also include consultation with relevant professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. This activity will normally be overseen by the Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Operations) who will provide advice on whether or not the findings are satisfactory.

• Detailed costing of the proposal based on the mode of provision envisaged. The costing

covers all expenses, including an estimate of the University staff (both academic and support) resource that will be required to support the partnership. The costing will normally be undertaken by the Finance Department, in liaison with the Institute concerned, using the proforma provided in Appendix CP2.

9.5.8 Details of the areas to be covered by the due diligence are set out in Appendix CP3. The due

diligence will be based, in part, on a contextual Institutional Profile Document prepared by the prospective partner institution covering the areas listed in Appendix CP4. The University recognises that the institution may wish to undertake similar due diligence investigations into the standing of the University and will respond accordingly and in full to equivalent information requests.

9.5.9 The information to support the due diligence process, obtained from the prospective partner institution in the required format, is received by the Collaborative Partnerships Office for analysis.

9.5.10 The findings of the due diligence process are reported by the Collaborative Partnerships Office to a Standing Group designated by IACPC. In the event that the Standing Group concludes that the findings of the due diligence process are satisfactory, it recommends to Senate a formal approval visit to the prospective partner institution is arranged.

9.5.11 In considering the findings of the due diligence process, the Standing Group will give specific consideration to the mode of partnership provision envisaged. The Standing Group may conclude, in the light of the due diligence, that an alternative mode of provision is desirable. In such cases, the Standing Group’s conclusions will be reported to Senate for consideration. If Senate determines that an alternative mode of provision is more appropriate, the prospective partner will be advised in advance of the approval visit.

9.5.12 SMT has authority to review the findings of the due diligence process and to confirm that an approval visit should be organised in the event that no meeting of Senate is scheduled during the month following the completion of the due diligence process.


9.6 Partnership approval 9.6.1 The process of partnership approval is overseen by the Collaborative Partnerships Office and

is based on a visit to the prospective partner institution by a University panel appointed by the Collaborative Partnerships Office on behalf of Senate. The visit will normally be to the headquarters of the prospective partner institution. If the proposal is for delivery at other (or multiple) sites, additional sites may be approved for delivery following successful partner approval, either via the programme validation process or a new centre approval visit. The purpose of the visit is to ascertain the following:

• that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the prospective partner institution is of appropriate academic standing;

• that the learning environment, including the human and physical resources, is or can be made appropriate to the standards of UK higher education;

• that the prospective partner institution has an understanding of the administrative and quality assurance requirements of UK higher education and will be able to fulfil those requirements;

• that staff are appropriately qualified, familiar with the requirements and ethos of higher education, have an understanding of UK assessment requirements, and will be able to deliver academic programmes successfully in collaboration with the University;

• that the prospective partner institution and its staff have experience appropriate to the mode of provision envisaged, and that the learning environment is appropriate to that mode of provision;

• that the University’s understanding of the local operational context, such as registration with regional and/or national governments and/or regulatory bodies, is accurate, so required actions can be confirmed;

• that where the proposed collaborative provision is to be delivered/assessed in language other than English or Welsh, the University is able to support the prospective partner institution via the agreed procedures outlined in the policy for delivery and assessment in languages other than English or Welsh.

9.6.2 The visit is essentially concerned with auditing much of the information already gathered,

including the Institutional Profile Document (which may be updated and extended for the purposes of the visit), and assessing the institutional capability to sustain and deliver the intended programmes. It is also concerned with strengthening the link between the University and the prospective partner institution, and providing an opportunity for identifying early staff development needs. It provides an opportunity to have discussions concerning the development of the curriculum; the development of specific resources to support the proposed collaboration; and identify the key staff involved at the institution and at the University.

9.6.3 The membership of the panel normally comprises:

• Chair, a senior member of staff;

• one or two external members, at least one of whom has significant experience of collaborative provision, for example as a QAA Reviewer;

• up to three internal members, with expertise that covers the discipline area(s) offered by the prospective partner institution, experience of collaborative provision and/or knowledge of learning resources (where appropriate internal members may contribute via video link);


• up to two members of staff from the Collaborative Partnerships Office, one of whom shall also record the deliberations of the panel and draft its report.

9.6.4 The precise composition of the panel shall depend on the nature of the proposed partnership.

For proposed collaborative partnerships which include the provision of research degrees, for example, at least one internal member and one external member of the panel will normally have direct experience of the management of research degrees. The eligibility of external panel members shall be considered by the Heads of Collaborative Partnerships, in liaison with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and/or their nominee.

9.6.5 The duration of the visit is determined by the University. Arrangements are made by the Collaborative Partnerships Office in liaison with the prospective partner institution. The visit includes, as a minimum: • meetings with the senior management of the prospective partner institution; • meetings with a group of students of the institution, including elected student

representatives; • meetings with the teaching staff of the institution; • (where the proposed provision includes postgraduate research degrees) meetings with

research supervisors; • meetings with the staff responsible for the provision of learning resources, student support

and student administration; • scrutiny of the institution’s learning and teaching facilities, and other facilities for students; • scrutiny of the records of the institution’s academic committees, including those involving

the participation of students; • scrutiny of the institution’s admissions policy and records of examining boards, together

with the institution’s procedures for maintaining student records; • scrutiny of external examiners’ reports and other reports by relevant external bodies; • scrutiny of prospectuses and other examples of publicity and marketing, together with the

institution’s procedures for ensuring that such information is complete and accurate;

9.6.6 In undertaking the activities described above, the panel is mindful of the mode of provision envisaged at the commencement of the partnership and tailors its enquiries accordingly. Where a validation partnership is proposed, for example, the panel expects to see evidence of a track record of successful programme development, as evidenced through student achievement and satisfaction and the reports of external examiners, and will wish to discuss the programme development process in detail with relevant staff. Where the proposed partnership includes the provision of research degrees, the panel will expect to explore in detail those areas listed in paragraphs. 9.13.1-9.13.4.

9.6.7 The panel will ensure that the proposed partner understands the requirements, both academic and administrative, in relation to programme validation and that additional charges may be applied if the University is required to support the partner in this respect.

9.6.8 The outcome of the visit is a report to Senate setting out the findings of the panel. The report is normally produced within 20 clear working days of the visit. The report concludes with one of the following recommendations:


• that the institution is approved as a collaborative partner of the University. Approval may be subject to conditions, which must be addressed to the University’s satisfaction prior to the next stage in the process, and/or recommendations which must be formally considered by the institution. Where this recommendation is made, the panel also specifies the mode of provision to be offered in the first instance;

• that the partnership is not approved at the current time, but that the University is prepared to consider a partnership in the future, subject to certain conditions;

• that the partnership is not approved as a collaborative partner of the University and that no further consideration should be given to the prospective partnership in the foreseeable future.

9.6.9 In the event that Senate approves the institution as a collaborative partner of the University,

the Chair of the approval panel is responsible to IACPC for ensuring that the institution is aware of any conditions of approval and for confirming to IACPC and Senate when such conditions have been met.

9.6.10 When the conditions of approval have been satisfied: • a Memorandum of Agreement governing the partnership is prepared by the Collaborative

Partnerships Office for signing by the Vice-Chancellor. The Memorandum is based on the University template, provided in Appendix CP6 and includes the date of the first review of the partnership and a Partnership Responsibility Protocol covering quality assurance and related responsibilities. The template may not be varied without the approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or his/her nominee. Only the Vice-Chancellor (or, in his/her absence, the Chair of Council) may sign a Memorandum of Agreement on behalf of the University. The Memorandum of Agreement will be supplemented in due course to reflect the provision approved for delivery by the partner and the agreed financial schedule. The document is held by the Collaborative Partnerships Office;

• the Collaborative Partnerships Office informs the partner institution and the parent

Institute confirming that approval has been given; • the partner institution is added to the University’s Register of Collaborative Partnerships

by the Collaborative Partnerships Office; • a Partnership Team Leader is appointed for the proposed programme(s);

• arrangements are made for the approval of individual programmes.

9.6.11 The partnership may not be advertised until the conditions have been met and the Memorandum of Agreement has been signed.

9.6.12 The University recognises that the development of successful collaborative provision hinges on the quality of the working relationships established between the parties concerned in the joint initiative. Differences in the experience of prospective partner institutions and in their internal academic and administrative organisation are likely to be reflected in the development time required to work with a prospective partner institution prior to formal approval of the new partnership.

9.6.13 A summary of the approval routes for partnership provision is provided in Appendix CP5. 9.7 Programme validation and approval

9.7.1 A key feature of the University’s approach to collaborative provision is the separation of

approval of collaborative partner institutions from the approval of individual programmes. The


University will not approve individual programmes until the partnership approval process has been successfully completed to the satisfaction of Senate, with all conditions met and recommendations considered and acted upon where appropriate.

9.7.2 The University recognises that occasionally and with good reason there may be a delay between the completion of the partnership approval process and the commencement of the programme approval processes. Where such a delay is more than 18 months, the University will normally undertake a further visit, based on the principles set out in paragraphs 9.6.1-9.6.6, before the programme approval process commences.

9.7.3 The initial approval of new programmes is the responsibility of SMT and the process of programme validation is overseen by ASC. Both activities are undertaken in accordance with the requirements set out in Chapter 4 of the Academic Quality Handbook (AQH). Chapter 4 contains details of the documentation required to support the process. The following, additional requirements apply to the approval process for programmes to be offered through collaborative partnerships, except where specified otherwise in Chapter 4:

• Consideration is given to the most appropriate structure for programmes, with a view to

minimising additional costs for both the University and the collaborative partner. This will normally involve grouping programmes in clusters within academically cognate disciplines that share a significant proportion of common modules (typically, 80 credits) at each level of study).

• After the draft Programme Document has been considered by both the external adviser

and the relevant University officers, validation for collaborative partnerships will normally require a formal meeting, usually held at the collaborative partner institution, to consider any specific risks associated with the proposed programme. The general Terms of Reference and Membership for such meetings are specified in Appendix PV7a. Specific Terms of Reference and Membership will be agreed by the Collaborative Partnerships Office. This requirement may be varied only with the approval of the Chair of ASC on the advice of the Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Operations).

• The formal meeting includes an opportunity for the University staff to visit the learning and

teaching facilities relevant to the proposed programme(s), and to look in detail at the library and technical resources available. Where the programme is to be delivered at more than one location, visits to other locations may have already taken place as part of the partner approval process and/or via a new centre approval visit; the approved reports of these visits will inform the programme approval process for those locations.

• The validation includes consideration of the arrangements proposed by the University and

the partner institution for managing the delivery of the programme(s), including liaison and quality assurance arrangements, and the identification of key staff.

• Where the proposed provision includes research degrees, the proposed programme will

be considered by at least two members of staff that have direct experience of the management of research degrees. The Collaborative Partnerships Office will consult with the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Experience) or nominee in advance of the validation to ensure that deliberations take place in the light of the University’s requirements for research degrees management.

• Where the proposed provision is to be delivered/assessed in a language other than

English or Welsh, the validation includes consideration of the arrangements relating to the following: The provision of texts/learning materials in the language of delivery; the proficiency levels in the language concerned; the use of plagiarism-detection software tools for assessments in other languages; where relevant, the English competency levels


for students who are completing some assessments in English and the approach to assessment in English for these students.

• The focus of the formal meeting shall normally be the collaborative partner’s capacity to

deliver and/or support programme(s), rather than the academic content of the programme, which will have been considered by the external adviser and relevant University officers when reviewing the draft Programme Document.

• The formal meeting may be attended by staff from the University who have been involved

in the development of the proposal. Such individuals are seen to fulfil a ‘facilitating’ function, advising the partner institution in the approval process as appropriate. They are not involved in the decision-making process but help to ensure that decisions made are properly informed.

• Where more than one programme of study is proposed, the Collaborative Partnerships

Office will determine the scope of the validation required, taking account of the proposed areas and modes of provision, and the proposed levels of study. Where more than one programme is considered per validation, a recommendation in respect of the pace with which the programmes should be introduced, and any conditions that must be met prior to their introduction is part of the validation process. The final decision on the schedule of introduction rests with the Academic Standards Committee, on behalf of Senate. If, subsequently, a partner wishes to commence delivery of a programme later than anticipated in the schedule, the Chair of ASC has authority to determine whether or not an additional engagement with the partner is necessary before delivery can commence. The nature of the engagement will be determined by the Chair of Senate based on a recommendation from the Collaborative Partnerships Office. An additional engagement will always be required where there is a delay of two years or more between the initial validation and the proposed date of the first intake of students.

• Where more than one mode of provision is proposed for a single partner institution, the

programmes proposed for each mode of delivery are normally considered in separate validations. The final decision on the schedule of introduction of each mode of provision rests with the ASC in liaison with the Collaborative Partnerships Office. If, subsequently, a partner wishes to commence a mode of provision later than anticipated in the schedule, the Chair of ASC has authority to determine whether or not an additional engagement with the partner is necessary before delivery can commence. The nature of the engagement will be determined by the Chair of the Academic Standards Committee in liaison with the Collaborative Partnerships Office. An additional engagement will always be required where there is a delay of two years or more between the initial validation and the proposed date of the first intake of students.

9.7.4 The AQH sets out the general matters for consideration for all programme approvals. These

matters may be amplified by the panel as appropriate to reflect the mode of provision under consideration. For example:

• In respect of dual awards, the consideration should be given to the arrangements for the

award to be made by the partner institution, including its location within relevant national frameworks, its equivalence to the award to be made by the University, and the certification (certificate and transcript) to be provided for students by each institution. The proposed arrangements for assessing whether students have met the requirements for each award should also be considered.

• In respect of a validation, consideration should be given to the way in which the curriculum

has been developed, and to establish its equivalence to curricula offered by the University and, where relevant, other partner institutions. It should also be determined whether either the University or the partner (as well as regional and/or national governments and/or


regulatory bodies, where applicable) has scope to modify the content of the curriculum, and the ways in which the University and the partner will work together to develop the curriculum. In addition, it should also be established how the partner institution will ensure that the student experience is equivalent to that of a student studying at the University and, in particular, how the assessment process will be managed.

• In respect of a franchise, the consideration should be given to either:

Establishing those areas in which it is proposed that the partner institution has scope to modify the existing University curriculum, the extent of flexibility proposed, and the way in which the University will maintain an overview of incremental changes. There should also be consideration of any implications for the curriculum as offered within the University (and, where relevant, other partner institutions) and an exploration of the proposed arrangements for ensuring that the partner institution is consulted about any subsequent changes to the curriculum proposed by the University. It should also be established how the University and the partner institution will ensure that the student experience is equivalent to that of a student studying at the University and, in particular, how the assessment process will be managed. Or Exploration of the proposed arrangements for ensuring that the University’s curriculum is delivered as intended by the partner institution, and how the equivalence of the student experience will be assured. The proposed arrangements for ensuring that the partner institution is consulted about any subsequent changes to the curriculum proposed by the University should also be discussed, as well as how the University and the partner institution will manage the assessment process and, where the same assignments and examinations are to be set for all students, how the process will be made secure.

In respect of off-campus delivery, the focus should be on the capacity of the partner institution to provide the necessary resources and facilities to support the University’s delivery of the programme, and on any adjustments to the programme which may be necessary to reflect the delivery context. Off-campus provision for an existing programme of study may not require a formal meeting, such as when the programme does not need to be adjusted to fit the location of delivery. Where a formal meeting is not held there will always be a New Centre Approval visit and documentation for existing programmes of study will be amended, as per the requirements for programme modifications.

• In respect of research degrees, consideration should be given in detail to those areas listed in paragraph 9.13.2

9.7.5 The outcome of the programme approval process is a report to ASC which will recommend one of the following :

• that the programme is approved for delivery, based on the specified mode of provision. • that the programme cannot be approved in its current form, but that the proposal should

be significantly revised by the partner institution, working with the relevant University Institute. The proposal may then be re-presented for consideration by ASC;

• that the programme cannot be approved based on the specified mode of provision, but

that an alternative mode of provision may be appropriate. The proposal may be re-presented in due course, based on an alternative mode of provision;

• that the proposal cannot be approved within the current timescale. The proposal may be

re-presented in due course and in accordance with a new timescale.


9.7.6 When the programme approval process has been completed: • the Memorandum of Agreement is supplemented to reflect the provision approved for

delivery by the partner institution;

• the Collaborative Partnerships Office informs the partner institution and the parent Institute that approval has been given.

• the University’s Register of Collaborative Partnerships is updated by the Collaborative

Partnerships Office.

9.7.7 The procedures set out in paragraphs 9.7.3-9.7.6 apply equally to new and existing collaborative partner institutions.

9.8 New Centre approval visits 9.8.1 New centre approval visits may be undertaken where:

• the partnership approval process (see paragraph 9.6.1) and/or programme validation process (see paragraph 9.7.3) involves a proposal for delivery at more than one site;

• proposed programme modifications involve an additional delivery centre for an existing programme at a partner (see paragraph 9.9.1);

• off-campus provision is approved for an existing programme of study and the programme

does not need to be adjusted to fit the location of delivery (see paragraph 9.7.4); • the partner institution moves to new premises.

9.8.2 New centre approval visits are carried out by one or more representatives of the University.

The representatives are normally from the Institute with responsibility for the relevant programme area, but may include those from outside the relevant Institute if deemed appropriate. The representative(s) undertaking the visit must be approved by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or the Chair of IACPC. A University proforma (which can also be used for additional delivery locations for a University programme delivered off-campus, e.g. a community venue) is completed as part of the process. The proforma (CP11) is supplemented by additional information provided by the partner and/or visiting representatives. The visit may include meetings with management, academic and support staff, as appropriate. The focus of the visit is to ensure that the location is a suitable, safe environment for the delivery of the proposed University programme(s), with adequate library, information and learning support facilities.

9.9 Programme modifications, including changes to mode of provision

9.9.1 The University’s procedures for modifying approved programmes are set out in Chapter 4 of

the AQH. The following, additional requirements apply to the modification process for programmes offered through collaborative partnerships, except where specified otherwise in Chapter 4:

• where the proposed modifications are such that a validation is required, a formal meeting

takes place at the partner institution. This requirement may be varied, with the approval of the Chair of ASC on the advice of the Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Operations), only where the provision is delivered through a UK-based structural partnership, or with a partner institution that has substantial experience of working with the University;


• where modifications to a collaborative programme are proposed by the relevant University Institute, the supporting documentation includes written evidence (such as records of meetings or a letter from the principal) that there has been discussion and consultation with the partner institution(s) involved in the delivery of the programme. It also includes a proposed timescale for the introduction of the modifications at each partner institution;

• Where the proposed modifications involve an additional delivery centre for an existing

programme at a partner, the parent Institute is required to submit Form CP1 to SMT (see paragraph 9.5.2) for initial consideration and approval. In the event that SMT approves the proposal, ASC is responsible for determining the activities required in taking it forward. Such activities will normally include an approval visit to the proposed new centre;

• all proposed modifications must give consideration to existing articulation agreements so that any potential incompatibilities are identified at an early stage and notified to partner institutions and applicants.

9.9.2 It is recognised that, as collaborative partnerships develop and are consolidated, it will

sometimes be desirable to change the approved mode of provision. Where a change to the mode of provision is proposed this may be considered as part of a revalidation process or the following requirements may apply, as determined by the Chair of ASC on the advice of the Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Operations):

• external adviser(s) with experience of collaborative provision shall be consulted; • a formal validation meeting takes place at the collaborative partner institution. The focus

will be on the collaborative partner institution’s ability to deliver the provision in the mode proposed, with reference to the criteria identified in paragraph 9.6.1. In particular, the University will wish to be assured that the partner institution has the necessary staffing and learning resources to deliver the provision in the mode proposed;

9.9.3 If Senate approves changes to the approved mode of provision, the Memorandum of

Agreement and Register of Collaborative Partnerships are amended. Where appropriate, the Memorandum of Agreement includes an amended Partnership Responsibility Protocol which further defines the responsibilities of each party in relation to the AQH.

9.10 Provision of academic and related support 9.10.1 The key principle underlying the development of the University’s collaborative provision

portfolio is that of academically-driven partnership, underpinned by effective administration, which supports all partners in developing capability, creating new knowledge and increasing intellectual capital. A corollary of this approach is that all collaborative provision programmes are associated with cognate provision within the University. One of the purposes of this ‘academic anchoring’ is to ensure that staff in partner institutions have access to appropriate advice and support in their delivery of the curriculum. Academic anchoring also supports the University in meeting its responsibilities in respect of the maintenance of academic quality and standards.

9.10.2 The University also recognises that good communication is vital to ensure that issues arising in operating programmes are addressed in an effective and timely manner by the relevant personnel. The distances involved, not only geographically but also between cultures, require regular contact with named individuals at the collaborative partner institutions to facilitate a commonality of approach and a shared understanding, to ensure that divergent practices do not serve to undermine standards. Staff of the University have a key part to play in helping to create an appropriate, reflective learning and teaching environment at the partner institution. It is expected that there will be continuing dialogue regarding programme delivery and


curriculum development, as well as the principles and policies in the areas of Student Cases and Student Representation, Engagement and Support, together with reciprocal visits.

9.10.3 In the context of this approach, collaborative partner institutions establish appropriate programme management structures in liaison with the University. Specific roles are allocated to University staff as described below, however, Institutes may also designate other staff to support more complex collaborative partnerships:

Partnership Team Leader

9.10.4 Each collaborative programme has a designated Partnership Team Leader (PTL) appointed

by senior staff in the relevant University Institute in liaison with the Collaborative Partnerships Office. PTLs are responsible for ensuring that standards of the programme delivered by the partner are consistent with the level of award proposed and helping to maintain and enhance the quality of the academic provision. PTLs are supported by Collaborative Partnership Office staff and contribute to the institutional processes of management of collaborative provision, led by the Collaborative Partnerships Office. It is expected that PTLs will have regular contact with collaborative partners, to ensure consistency between the respective deliveries of the awards.

Where partnerships involve several programmes, an Executive PTL will be appointed to oversee all the programmes in relation to the developmental and monitoring functions. They will work with other PTLs who will undertake the assessment functions.

Responsibilities of PTLs cover a number of different functions as follows: Developmental functions:

• providing academic advice and a point of contact to facilitate continuing development of

the programme;

• encouraging and providing staff development as appropriate, to support the general staff development provided by the Collaborative Partnerships Office;

• encouraging scholarly activity and supporting the partner institution to develop in such a

way that they provide a suitable learning environment for the validated programme; • supporting the partner institution in producing appropriate documentation for the

University, such as Annual Programme Reports, documentation for (re)validation and documentation for partnership reviews.

Monitoring functions: • maintaining oversight, at programme level, of the management and delivery of the

provision and providing guidance to the partner institution as required;

• working with the partner institution to ensure that the University’s quality assurance requirements are met, including the requirements relating to annual review.

• monitoring the adequacy of resources – both human and physical – available to provide

an appropriate level of underpinning for the programmes of study;

• approving, in consultation with appropriate members of University staff including subject specialists, the appointment of new staff by the partner institution to teach on the collaborative programme;


• where collaborative partnerships include the provision of postgraduate research degrees, monitoring all supervisory arrangements, the supervisory capacity of the partner institution, composition of supervisory teams, the research environment and the assessment of student progress and performance;

• holding meetings with students where possible and/or recording any issues related to the

student experience that were raised by partner staff, external examiners etc.; • serving in a ‘facilitating’ capacity at validation/review events; • reporting to the relevant Institute Board and the Collaborative Partnerships Office using

the template provided in Appendix CP7;

• Where the programme is also delivered at the University (franchise, off-campus), liaising with the relevant Programme Manager to ensure that the partner institution programme is of an appropriate quality and consistent with University requirements. The PTL and Programme Manager shall also ensure that programme information in disseminated to the parties involved at the partner institution and the University.

Assessment functions:

• where appropriate, working with the partner institution to identify and nominate external examiners and, in the case of research degree examinations, examining boards, for approval by the University;

• reviewing and providing written comments on draft assessments, including examination

papers; • checking that marking responsibilities have been assigned and that moderation (including,

where appropriate, cross moderation with other partners delivering the same programme) is undertaken;

• sampling student work ensuring that student performance is assessed against established

criteria to ensure fairness and consistency in the assessment process; • attending Examining Board meetings where possible (in person or by video link) and, in

the case of research degree provision, annual review meetings, and monitoring the outcomes.

9.10.6 PTLs normally undertake at least one formal visit per academic year to the partner institution.

Where an Executive PTL is appointed, the visit will normally be undertaken by them.

9.10.7 Each PTL will be required to submit one monitoring report per semester, using the template provided in Appendix CP7, to the Collaborative Partnerships Office. This should also be forwarded to the relevant Institute Board for consideration. A copy is also sent to the partner institution and relevant Programme Managers, where applicable. Where the PTL has not undertaken a visit the report should be based on other interactions with the collaborative partner (email, skype, telephone calls etc.)

9.10.8 Where there are programme(s) delivered at more than one location within a single

partnership, the required PTL visit may be varied to reflect this, with the approval of the Collaborative Partnerships Office. Variations might include one visit per location per academic year (covering all the programmes delivered at a centre wherever possible); visits undertaken by other members of Institute staff; meetings with staff from one location undertaken as part of a visit to another of the institutions’ locations; reports of communications (emails, voice/video calls etc.) forming the basis of a report.


9.10.9 A nomination for a Partnership Team Leader assigned to a programme is submitted to

IACPC every 3 years. Extensions beyond this period require the approval of IACPC.

Other supporting roles

9.10.10 Support for collaborative partnerships is also provided by a range of other officers and departments within the University, including Institute-based collaborative support officers where appropriate. In addition, the Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Partnership Relations) has primary responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of effective working relationships with partner institutions, including the arrangements for continuous liaison on strategic and operational matters. The Head of Collaborative Partnerships (Operations) has responsibility for the development and implementation of the University’s arrangements for assuring the academic quality and standards of the University’s collaborative partnerships, including the arrangements for academic liaison via PTLs and External Examiners, and for managing all aspects of the central administrative support for partnerships.

The Collaborative Partnership Office is responsible for:

• co-ordinating the arrangements in relation to partner approval, monitoring and review; • providing advice and guidance to Institutes in relation to their risk management

responsibilities;

• monitoring the arrangements in relation to programme approval, validation and review; • retaining oversight and approval of the academic staff appointed to the teaching team

in collaborative partnerships and maintaining a register of such staff. • general staff development in relation to the University’s policies and processes;

• providing advice and guidance in relation to the University’s policies and procedures

for Student Cases, and assisting in implementing these where appropriate;

• monitoring the arrangements made for the admission of students and the application of the approved entry requirements;

• checking the accuracy of published information provided for applicants and students

(including promotional materials, web content and programme handbooks);

• ensuring that PTLs complete and submit their monitoring reports. 9.11 Monitoring 9.11.1 Collaborative programmes are monitored by the University in accordance with its standard

arrangements for annual review, as set out in Chapter 4 of the AQH. For each programme offered collaboratively, the teaching team, led by the programme leader, at the partner institution is responsible for providing a reflective evaluation of the programme. In the case of research degree provision, the appropriate officer at the partner institution (e.g. the


Director of Research Degree Studies or equivalent) is responsible for providing an annual reflective evaluation of the provision, using the template provided by the University.

9.11.2 In addition:

• appropriate reflection by Institutes is made on matters raised in annual review reports from partner institutions;

• partner institutions are required to submit to the University a brief annual institutional overview report to accompany the annual review reports (using Appendix PV12a), commenting on the operation of the partnership as a whole and the annual review process itself. A summary of matters raised in these reports is prepared by the Collaborative Partnerships Office and presented to IACPC and ASC for consideration;

• monitoring is provided via the PTL, as described in paragraphs 9.10.4-9.10.7). Their responsibilities include completing monitoring reports using a University template (Appendix CP7), which are considered at Institute and University level.

• At least one formal visit will be made to the partner institution per academic year. These visits may be undertaken by the PTLs or representatives of the Collaborative Partnerships Office. There may also be visits related to partnerships review (see paragraphs 9.12.1-9.12.6) or programme (re)validation.

9.11.3 To support the activities identified above, the University also undertakes an annual financial

review of each partnership, as appropriate. A summary of the findings of the financial review is provided for IACPC. In the event that concerns are identified, an action plan is produced by the University and is monitored to completion by IACPC.

9.11.4 Memoranda of agreement with partner institutions make clear that the University retains

responsibility for the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to its collaborative provision. Procedures for approving and monitoring the accuracy of such materials are set out in Appendix CP8.

9.11.5 Where, through its routine monitoring or other engagements, the University becomes

concerned that a partner institution is not meeting its obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and/or the Chair of IACPC, in liaison with the relevant Dean of Institute, has authority to require the introduction of measures to provide additional support for the partner institution in meeting those obligations. This may be in relation to the partnership generally or for specific programme(s). The measures, which may include a moratorium on recruitment, are communicated in writing to the partner and progress reports are provided at subsequent meetings of IACPC until such a time as the difficulties have been resolved or it becomes necessary to recommend that the partnership, or programme(s), is terminated.

9.12 Review 9.12.1 University programmes are subject to a revalidation in the fifth year of delivery or sooner.

Programmes offered collaboratively are reviewed and revalidated by the University in accordance with its standard processes, as set out in Chapter 4 of the AQH.

9.12.2 The overall arrangements for each collaborative partnership are reviewed by the University

at least every 5 years. The detailed arrangements for Partnership Review are set out in Appendix CP9.

9.12.3 In addition, where a new partner is delivering a programme with the University for the first

time, an interim review is undertaken. The interim review is normally scheduled to take place either immediately after the first cohort of students have completed the programme


(in respect of one year programmes) or after two years. The review is designed to enable the University to evaluate the first full cycle of activity with reference to:

• the operation of the programme in terms of delivery and assessment;

• student progression and achievement;

• the student experience;

• (in respect of research degrees) supervisory arrangements;

• the expectations set out in the Memorandum of Agreement, including requirements in respect of public information and publicity.

9.12.4 The interim review is normally conducted by a panel of two, appointed by IACPC: a member

of the University’s academic staff (where possible the Chair or another member of the original partnership approval panel) and a member of staff with responsibilities relating to quality assurance.

9.12.5 The review takes the form of a meeting with staff at the University, and further discussions

with staff and students at the partner institution, focusing on the areas identified in paragraph 9.12.3. Prior to the meetings, the panel also considers specified documentation, to include the relevant Memorandum of Agreement, PTLs’ reports, minutes of programme team meetings, student handbooks, and examples of public information and materials.

9.12.6 The outcome of the review is a report to IACPC evaluating the operation of the partnership

to date. The report draws attention to any examples of good practice and may make recommendations for improvement. IACPC considers any institutional implications in the report and refers it to the relevant Institute for consideration and action as appropriate. Further details of the arrangements for interim review are set out in Appendix CP9c.

9.12.7 The University may bring forward the date of an interim or periodic review in the event that

concerns have been raised about a partnership or the delivery of a collaborative programme.

9.13 Postgraduate research degrees 9.13.1 The University may offer postgraduate research degrees in collaboration with a partner

institution. 9.13.2 The process for approving collaborative partnerships which include research degrees is

that set out in paragraphs 9.5.1-9.6.11. For proposals which include research degrees, at least one internal member and one external member of the partnership approval panel will have direct experience of the management of research degrees. To inform its decision, the University also requests information from the (prospective) partner, additional to that detailed in paragraph 9.5.8, as follows:

A description of institution’s size, structure and arrangements in relation to research, to include: • history and experience of delivering research degrees; • structures for managing and supporting research degrees; • current numbers of research degree students; • quality assurance arrangements, including arrangements for student representation; • statement on engagement, with the relevant section of UK Quality Code Advice and

Guidance; • future aspirations in terms of student numbers.


• Information relating to supervisory arrangements, to include: • staff CVs (including details of research degrees supervised to successful completion); • current status of all supervisors (Director of Studies, 2nd Supervisor etc.); • current supervisory loads.

• Research degrees data, to include:

• admissions; • statistics of supervision to completion; • viva results for last 5 years; • number and nature of complaints and appeals.

• Information relating to development activities, to include:

• supervisor development; • generic skills for research degree students; • induction of students; • Professional Development Planning (PDP).

• A description of the research environment, to include:

• research culture; • research strategy; • for UK institutions, participation in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise; • opportunities for students; • research collaboration with others; • ethics arrangements.

• Supporting documentation, to include handbooks for students and supervisors:

9.13.3 The progress of individual students studying for research degrees in partner institutions is

monitored in accordance with the University’s standard arrangements for research degrees provision, which includes the submission of annual reports on each student for consideration by the Research Degrees Committee (RDC). An overview of the provision as a whole is maintained through the reporting and monitoring processes described in paragraphs 9.10.4-1-9.11.5. In addition to the arrangements described in these paragraphs, annual reports from partner institutions are also considered by RDC, which will draw IACPC’s attention to any matters of concern or requiring further consideration. IACPC may similarly draw RDC’s attention to matters requiring further consideration or action.

9.13.4 Collaborative partnerships which include research degrees are reviewed in accordance

with the arrangements described in paragraphs 9.12.1-9.12.7, supplemented as appropriate to reflect the particular requirements of research degrees provision.

9.14 Articulation links

9.14.1 The University defines articulation links as arrangements whereby students at a partner

institution have guaranteed direct entry with advanced standing into specified programmes of the University, subject to fulfilment of certain criteria.

9.14.2 The principles and procedures governing the University’s management of articulation links

are the same as those for other forms of collaborative partnerships, modified as appropriate to reflect the lower risk involved.

9.14.3 In summary:

• At the point at which a Institute or an individual wishes to register a firm proposal for

collaboration, it submits Appendix CP1a, to the SMT. This will include details, verified


by the external examiner, of how the relevant curriculum provided at the partner institution relates to the curriculum offered at the University, and hence that the proposed articulation is appropriate.

• Following consideration of Appendix CP1a, SMT takes one of the decisions listed in

paragraph 9.5.3. Where the proposal is approved for due diligence, the activities will include, as a minimum, a credit check on the proposed partner institution and enquiries to establish whether the prospective partner institution is of good academic standing, has experience appropriate to the proposed collaboration and, where applicable, can provide evidence that it has Tier 4 Sponsor Status. Sound financial standing may be evidenced from information such as the history and legal standing of the institution.

• The due diligence report and detailed proposal are presented to IACPC for scrutiny.

IACPC’s recommendation is presented to Senate. In the event that the articulation link is approved, the Collaborative Partnerships Office informs the partner institution and the parent Institute confirming that approval has been given, outlining the arrangements for review and the University’s Register of Collaborative Partnerships is updated by the Collaborative Partnerships Office. The Articulation Agreement (see Appendix CP10) and the annual articulation agreement Review (see Appendix CP9b) specify the arrangements for ensuring that the articulation continues to be appropriate.

• Due diligence requirements will vary where proposals for articulation links come from

awarding bodies rather than individual partner institutions, or from existing partners of the University.

• A visit to the proposed partner may be required to facilitate discussions with the partner

about the operation of the articulation link, to assess any specialist resources relating to the articulation link and to ensure the partner is able to provide the necessary learning resources, learning opportunities and administrative support to enable the link to operate successfully.

• A member of Institute, is appointed to oversee the articulation link and to report

annually to Senate, via IACPC, on its operation. Visits to the partner institution may be made, as appropriate, to facilitate and promote the articulation link.

• The parent Institute will maintain the documentation in relation to the programmes at

both the partner institution and the University, the initial mapping and the subsequent reviews.

• The articulation link is reviewed by the University annually, in accordance with the

arrangements described in Appendix CP9b. • Following annual review, where it becomes apparent that an articulation link should not

continue, due to changes in the University’s or partner institution’s mapped curriculum or because the anticipated number of students has not materialised, steps will be taken to terminate the partnership as outlined below.

9.14.4 Decisions to terminate articulation links are made by Senate, normally on the

recommendation of IACPC, following the annual review of the articulation link or under other circumstances where it has reason to believe that the continuation of the partnership may not be in the best interests of the University. Recommendations to terminate an articulation link are accompanied by a report to Senate which includes: specific comment on the overall performance of the partner institution; any action taken in response to conditions or recommendations imposed by the University; any details of admission offers outstanding and any relevant issues relating to reputational risk to the University.


9.14.5 In the event that a decision is taken to terminate an articulation link, Senate charges IACPC with responsibility for liaising with the relevant Institute and support units and preparing a detailed plan for termination with a particular focus on collecting all outstanding monies owed, admissions and arrangements for communicating the termination of the partnership to the partner institution and any affected applicants. In addition:

• The Collaborative Partnerships Office prepares an Exit Agreement based on the

information provided, clearly identifying the processes for the withdrawal of marketing material, including web references, by the partner institution; notification to relevant organisations including, where appropriate, national government agencies. Senate is responsible for approving or amending the Exit Agreement and initiating its implementation.

• The Vice-Chancellor notifies the partner institution in writing of the decision of Senate

to terminate the articulation link. The communication from the Vice-Chancellor confirms the immediate suspension of student recruitment, the mechanism for communicating possible options available to any applicants, expectations for withdrawal of all marketing material and any requirements for settling outstanding debts.

• Senate is responsible for monitoring the effective withdrawal from the partnership,

including determining whether the Exit Agreement has been implemented appropriately.

• At the point of termination the University’s Register of Collaborative Partnerships is

updated accordingly. • Termination or expiration of any articulation link in accordance with the procedures

specified above is deemed to be a permanent withdrawal. Any proposal to resume a partnership must follow the procedures for new articulation link approval set out in paragraph 9.14.3 above.

9.15 Standard Accreditation of Prior Certificated Learning 9.15.1 Standard recognition of prior certificated learning is whereby the process of Recognition of

Prior Certificated Learning (RPCL) - the transfer of credit achieved from previous higher education study towards a programme of study at the University – is facilitated for large numbers of candidates in respect of certificated learning (qualifications such as BTEC, HND, (PG) Certs/Dips or those recognised by NARIC). This avoids the process of multiple individual RPCL claims where certificated learning that is equivalent to a programme’s module(s) has already been mapped and approved, and where it is expected that a number of applicants with this certificated learning will progress to a University programme (including programmes at partner institutions).

9.15.2 As Standard RPCL is likely to apply mainly to international students (whether in the UK or

at partner institutions), Standard RPCL proposals (using Appendix CP12) are submitted to, and approved by IACPC. Following approval, the Secretary informs the relevant University departments and the partner institution of the approval. Standard RPCL is reviewed by IACPC annually, via Appendix CP12a.

9.16 Dual awards 9.16.1 Dual awards are those in which, on the successful completion of programmes, separate

qualifications are awarded by the partner institution and by the University respectively. In addition to the matters to be considered by the validation panel, outlined in 9.7.4, the programme documentation will detail the assessment responsibilities of the University and the partners in relation to maintaining oversight of the academic standards of the award for


which each is responsible. This is expected to be reviewed via Partnership Team Leader reports and annual programme review.

9.16.2 As the defining feature of qualifications involving more than one degree-awarding body are

that the programmes are distinct qualifications, quality assurance arrangements will be adapted for each dual award. All such arrangements will, however, be based on the principles and procedures governing the University’s other forms of the collaborative partnerships.

9.17 Partners that contribute to the delivery of the University’s Programme(s) 9.17.1 There will be occasions when the University will benefit from the contribution of external

organisations to its own validated programmes; this could include use of resources or delivery input. In these cases, partners will be identified in form PV1 and SMT will consider the appropriateness of the contribution when approving the proposal. A ‘light touch’ due diligence may be undertaken as required. The partner organisation representatives will be present at the University validation event and a Memorandum of Understanding and Collaborative Academic Agreement is signed with the partner, which outlines the role and responsibilities of the partner in relation to the programme. Where the programme is part-delivered on premises that are not the University campus a New Centre Approval visit will always be required to be completed as part of the validation process. The Programme Director is responsible for ensuring that the partner fulfils the role and responsibilities attributed to them; which will include visiting any non-University premises used for delivery.

9.18 Assessment and external examining 9.18.1 Assessment arrangements for students on collaborative programmes, and arrangements

for external examining, are made in accordance with the regulations and procedures outlined in Chapter 7 of the AQH. In the case of programmes leading to awards of external bodies, arrangements may be made as specified by the relevant external body, provided that they meet the University’s minimum requirements.

9.19 Certification and transcripts

9.19.1 The University has sole authority for issuing certificates and transcripts relating to

programmes of study delivered in collaboration with partner institutions. The transcript records the name and location of the partner institution.

9.20 Terminating collaborative partnerships

9.20.1 As part of the development of a new collaborative partnership, the University gives

consideration to the potential withdrawal or closure of that partnership in the future. Memoranda of Agreement with collaborative partner institutions include the procedures that must be followed in the event that the University or a partner institution wishes to withdraw from a partnership, and the steps that must be taken when a partnership is terminating.

9.20.2 In considering whether or not to terminate a collaborative partnership, or to allow a

collaborative partnership to expire, the University has due regard for the educational experience of its students registered with the partner institution, and for its legal obligations to those students. It will develop an exit strategy designed to ensure that those legal obligations are addressed and that academic quality and standards are protected until all students have completed their programmes of study.

9.20.3 Decisions to terminate collaborative partnerships are made by Senate, normally on the

recommendation of IACPC. IACPC may make such a recommendation following an interim or periodic review of a partner institution, or under other circumstances where it has reason to believe that the continuation of the partnership may not be in the best interests of the


University or the partner institution. Where such circumstances relate to matters of academic standards and quality, IACPC normally supports a plan of remedial action prior to making a recommendation that the partnership be terminated, as outlined in paragraph 9.11.5.

9.20.4 Recommendations to terminate a collaborative partnership are accompanied by a report to

Senate which includes specific comment on:

• overall performance of the partner institution and any action taken in response to conditions or recommendations imposed by the University;

• full details of all University students registered with the partner institution;

• details of admission offers outstanding;

• information regarding how the students will be affected, how they will be supported to complete their award (in relation to teaching, resources, academic and pastoral supervision), and whether there are any perceived differences in impact for students on different stages of the programme;

• any prior or planned consultation with students/applicants;

• where the programme is accredited by a professional, statutory or regulatory body, consultation and communication with that body;

• any relevant issues relating to standards or delivery;

• any relevant issues relating to financial viability or legal standing;

• any relevant issues relating to strategic planning;

• any relevant issues relating to reputational risk to the University. 9.20.5 In the event that a decision is taken to terminate a collaborative partnership, Senate charges

IACPC with responsibility for liaising with the relevant Institute and support units and preparing a detailed plan for termination with a particular focus on:

• collecting all outstanding monies owed;

• admissions;

• ensuring that the University has a full record of student achievement including any approved APEL entitlement and the associated transcripts;

• obtaining marks for work which have been assessed but that have not yet been presented to an examining board;

• details of the supervisory arrangements for dissertation students, projects, work placements etc.;

• the Institute’s proposed plan for supporting students towards completion of their programmes of study which might include: transfer of students to another location at which the programme(s) are being delivered; electronic support requirements; and additional staffing requirements;

• identifying the costs associated with supporting the remaining students, including those who are resitting or who have deferred;

• any other relevant information which will potentially impact on the ability of students to complete their programmes and of the University to maintain the academic standards


and quality of the awards;

• arrangements for communicating the termination of the partnership to the affected students, clearly outlining any consequences in relation to progression or completion of their award.

9.20.6 The Collaborative Partnerships Office determines the arrangements to be followed based

on the information provided, clearly identifying the risks at each stage, together with the processes for:

• completion of studies by any students whose award extends beyond the expiry date of

the partnership, including those students with failed modules outstanding and communication of this to the students. Specific reference is made to the options available for such students;

• the withdrawal of marketing material, including web references, by the partner

institution; • notification to relevant organisations including, where appropriate, national government

agencies.

9.20.7 The Vice-Chancellor notifies the collaborative partner institution in writing of the decision of Senate to terminate the partnership. The communication from the Vice-Chancellor confirms:

• the immediate suspension of student recruitment; • the mechanism for communicating possible options available to continuing students; • any limitations or restrictions regarding communicating the termination to students; • the quality assurance and assessment arrangements that will apply; • expectations for withdrawal of all marketing material; • any proposed arrangements for visiting the partner institution to meet with students; • any requirements for settling outstanding debts.

9.20.8 Senate is responsible for monitoring the effective withdrawal from the collaborative

partnership, including determining whether the Exit arrangements have been implemented appropriately.

The University writes to students communicating the termination of the partnership and clearly outlining any consequences in relation to progression or completion of their award.

9.20.9 At the point of termination the University’s Register of Collaborative Partnerships is updated accordingly.

9.20.10 Termination or expiration of any collaborative partnership in accordance with the procedures

specified above is deemed to be a permanent withdrawal. Any proposal to resume a partnership must follow the procedures for new partnership approval set out in paragraphs 9.5.1-9.6.11.

9.21 Bribery Act 2010

9.21.1 It is the policy of the University that all staff and students conduct business in an honest way,


and without the use of corrupt practices or acts of bribery to obtain an unfair advantage. The University recognises that bribery is now a criminal offence in most countries and that corrupt acts expose the University and its employees to the risk of prosecution, fines and imprisonment, as well as endangering the University’s reputation. The University attaches the utmost importance to this policy and applies a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to acts of bribery and corruption by any of its employees or third-party representatives (including students).

chapter 9 procedural framework for collaborative provision€¦ · 9.1.1 collaborative provision is...

Documents