Collaborative Provision Handbook: Policy and Process for the approval of new providers and new courses

Transcription

1 Collaborative Provision Handbook: Policy and Process for the approval of new providers and new courses Prepared by Academic Services Date policy/process agreed: July 2014 Date policy/process to be May 2017 reviewed:

2 Contents PART 1 General information Glossary Introduction to this document Special notice Partners Risk Management University Management PART 2 Process for the approval of partner institutions and organisations Introduction General The Process of partner approval Responsibilities Approval Management Contracts Cost Benefit Analysis Due Diligence (financial, legal, reputational) PART 3 - Procedure for the approval of new courses delivered by an approved partner Introduction Key contact point Approval process - Stage 1: Outline planning approval process - Stage 2: Course approval process PART 4 General administrative arrangements Administrative arrangements regarding approved courses - Course modification - Staff changes - Quality assurance 2

3 Appendices Appendix A Flowchart outlining process for new provision Appendix B Operational Responsibilities Appendix C Outline plan template Appendix D List of stakeholders for outline plans Appendix E Suggested programme for approval event panels Appendix F Criteria for approval of levels 4, 5, 6, 7 Appendix G Nomination forms for external advisor to panel (academic/employer) Appendix H Internal stakeholder consultation on documentation for approval of new course(s) delivered by a partner provider (detailed planning) Appendix I Template for reporting of the approval event Appendix J Criteria for the consideration of staff at partner organisations teaching on BSU courses of study (agreed by AQSC, June 2008, Q709 refers) Appendix K Link tutor roles and moderation of assessed work Appendix L Partner Annual Report (PAR) Template Appendix M Partner Review Visits Process 3

4 PART 1 General information 4

5 Part 1 - General information Glossary Indirectly funded provision: students on such courses are returned to HEFCE by the University as funded numbers. Students pay a fee to the University for which they are entitled to access a range of services at the University, as well as those available at their place of study. The University pays a fee to the provider to deliver the course. Indirectly funded provision is usually with FEC partners. Directly funded provision: students on such courses are NOT returned to HEFCE by the University. The provider returns the numbers. Students do not pay fees to the University but to the provider, and, therefore, are not entitled to access University services. The University charges the provider a fee to maintain oversight of the standard and quality of the award for which it is responsible. Directly funded provision is often provided by private partners or by FECs with a direct funding allocation from HEFCE or its UK equivalents. Franchising: is a process by which an awarding institution agrees to authorise another organisation to deliver (and sometimes assess) part or all of one (or more) of its own approved programmes. Often, the awarding institution retains direct responsibility for the programme content, the teaching and assessment strategy, the assessment regime and quality assurance. Validation: is a process by which an awarding institution judges a module or programme developed and delivered by another institution or organisation and approves it as of an appropriate standard and quality to contribute, or lead, to one of its awards. Students normally have a direct relationship with the partner institution. Introduction to this document This document provides information, advice and guidance on the University s quality management of collaborative partnerships. This document replaces all previous versions. This document is designed to be stand-alone, giving comprehensive advice with respect to all policies and procedures covering collaborative provision. The course approval aspects contained within this document are consistent with the university s own internal course approval policies and procedures. However, where appropriate, minor variance with internal processes and procedures have been allowed where elements of those internal processes and procedures are redundant with respect to external partners. A general flowchart outlining processes for new provision with partners is given as Appendix A. This first part of the document addresses the University s general strategy and policy in this area. There are then separate sections of the document which categorise partnerships. Institutions which are not approved partners must seek partner approval (Part 2) before any programmes or courses may be approved (Part 3). The final part (Part 4) then covers general administration arrangements. Appendices are more specifically 5

6 concerned with the quality and other management processes referred to throughout this document. The assurance of the quality and standards of all awards remains the responsibility of the University, however such awards are funded. However, some operational differences may occur depending on the nature of the partnership. These are highlighted in Appendix B. Special notice Any proposal on the part of a partner to depart from the agreed policy and process for the quality management of collaborative provision explained within this document must be approved formally by the appropriate University Committee. The University reserves the right to vary its requirements of partners in exceptional circumstances Partners The University only operates with partners which satisfy the criteria laid down in the University s Collaborative Provision Strategic Plan. Risk management Inherently, collaborative provision carries the risk that academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities may be inconsistent or variable across different sites of delivery. Partners, or particular courses offered by partners, may be subject to additional scrutiny if the result of a specific process, such as annual monitoring or periodic review, finds that such is required. Such a decision will be reported to and ratified by the Collaborative Provision Committee. University Management The responsibility for oversight of partnerships lies with Academic Board or a specific delegated sub-committee of that Board. The responsibility for assuring the quality and standards of awards lies with the Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC). The University s Academic Services unit is responsible for ensuring that quality and standards processes operate effectively (eg course approval, annual monitoring, periodic review, external examining reports) with partners. The unit also ensures that relevant reports are submitted to AQSC and CPC. 6

7 PART 2 Process for the approval of partner institutions and organisations 7

8 Part 2 - Process for the approval of partner institutions and organisations Introduction The purpose of this document is to outline the procedure by which Bath Spa University will approve prospective partner institutions and organisations who wish to offer awards approved by the University. General It is a pre-requisite of the approval of any course that institutional approval has first been secured from the University. No course approval will be given until this institutional approval has been secured and approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Approval of an institution and approval of courses are separate processes. The Process of partner approval The business case for a partnership (resource, legal, reputational and strategic matters) is a matter for decision by the Vice-Chancellor. The academic case (i.e. such matters as the fitness of an academic programme to attract a BSU award or the competence of staff to teach it) is for the Academic Board. In practice, authority in each case is usually delegated to individuals or groups. Each partnership is unique. The arrangements pertaining to approval, monitoring and review should work within Guidelines approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Academic Board, but individual arrangements will vary according to circumstances. The diversity of partnerships is such that it is not possible to generate automatic judgements on such matters as whether partnerships should proceed or be approved from algorithms such as risk matrix scores. Judgements should be made on the basis of expertise and experience, and responsible individuals must be accountable for decisions. Except in cases where there is an overriding strategic benefit, the University cannot subsidise partnerships. For a partnership to proceed, both business and academic cases must be sound. For practical and economic reasons, judgement on the business case precedes judgement on the academic case. Responsibilities The Chief Operating Officer, hereafter COO, will be responsible for decisions on the business case for partnerships, and for decisions on their on-going financial, legal and strategic viability. The COO will be responsible for contractual arrangements between BSU and partners. The Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) will be responsible for decisions on academic approval, monitoring and review of partnerships. 8

9 A Dean of school will sponsor each proposal, i.e. he/she will provide a link tutor and an academic home at BSU for any programme offered in partnership. Approval All proposals for programmes delivered in partnership will be routed through the Dean of School in the first instance, whatever their origin. If the Dean of School determines that it is likely that a proposed partnership will meet the strategic objectives of the University, (s)he will act as sponsor of the proposal. The Dean of School will prepare Cost/Benefit Analysis with the help of the COO. The COO will consider the Cost/Benefit Analysis, and determine whether or not the proposal merits a Due Diligence Inquiry. If it does, he will determine his information needs. If the COO determines that due diligence is satisfied, he will authorise the Dean of School to proceed to academic consideration by CPC. Following consultation with the sponsor, The Vice-Provost (Learning and Teaching Quality), hereafter VPQ, will present a written proposal on the requirements for approval to CPC, and CPC will determine the requirements. When the requirements have been fulfilled, VPQ will present a report to CPC, following consultation with the sponsor, with recommendations on arrangements for the approval of the partnership. These arrangements will include a written report on the visit to the partner, with the panel s recommendations about approval. If CPC determines that a partnership should be approved, it must also determine arrangements for monitoring and review, in the light of the information in the reports and discussion with VPQ. The CPC informs COO of the outcomes, including its determination as to monitoring and review. Management Each partner shall have a BSU administrative link in the Academic Services, and at least one link tutor for each disciplinary area covered by the partnership. These shall be the primary points of contact for administrative and academic matters respectively. As for all other programmes, Academic Services shall alert the link tutor to the routine requirements of academic quality assurance, and to any additional requirements of CPC. There shall be corresponding links with named individuals in each partner. Contracts No collaborative partnership shall enrol students until a contract is in place between the two parties. Contracts are the responsibility of COO. It is anticipated that he will take legal advice as to the standard coverage of contracts. 9

10 Contracts shall refer to an operational annex dealing with the requirements of managing the specific partnership, including academic management matters such as examination boards. This may include elements established at approval by CPC. This annex will be kept continuously under review, and may be amended as a result of monitoring. Contracts will specify the conditions under which either side may withdraw from a partnership. Arrangements for withdrawal shall always specify how residual needs of students with incomplete courses may be satisfied. Cost Benefit Analysis The purpose of the Cost/Benefit Analysis is to give the COO sufficient information to enable him to determine whether it is worthwhile to commit resources to a Due Diligence investigation. It will be for the COO to determine the likely costs and benefits, on the basis of information provided by the Dean of school. Costs Costs are likely to include Due diligence costs (potentially including credit checks and solicitors fees). Development Costs (salaries and fees, travel, hotels, subsistence, etc.) Quality assurance visits. Any visits for teaching development purposes. The costs of the link tutor. General administrative costs. External Examiner Fees; costs of external examiner visits. Other examination costs. The COO will also be aware of the potential costs of debt recovery and contingency. Benefits The information provided to the COO should include The school s rationale for working with this partner on this programme. The relevance of the proposed collaboration to the University s Strategic Plan. The potential academic benefits to the school and the University. A market and competitor analysis showing why it is thought that recruitment is sustainable. Benefits may be compromised by The reputation and status of the proposed partner. The experience of the school in relation to any proposed new mode of delivery. 10

11 Due Diligence (financial, legal, reputational) The COO will determine his information in the light of the specific proposal. In some cases, professional advice may be necessary. In some cases it will be necessary to visit the partner. The proposed partner will provide much of the information: the Dean of School will liaise with the partner to make the information available. It is likely that some or all of the following information will be required. Legal Risks A copy of the constitutional documents for the PPI, incorporating any amendments that have been made. It may be necessary to have these documents notarised. Evidence that the PPI has power to enter into the proposed collaboration. Details of the legal framework for the jurisdiction applying to the PPI in respect of the proposed collaboration. Copies of all permits, authorities, registrations, licences, approvals and consents (whether granted by public or private authorities or otherwise) necessary to carry on both the PPI or the proposed activities. Details of any data protection requirements relevant to the PPI or the proposed collaboration. Financial Risks Confirmation of the solvency of the PPI. Details of all mortgages, charges or other security documentation affecting the PPI and copies of any documentation that may affect the partnership. Details of the financing arrangements of the PPI including particulars of overdrafts, loans and other indebtedness and similar facilities. Details of state or public sector funding applicable to the PPI. Details of relevant grants, subsidies, payments or allowances taken out by or granted to the PPI in relation to the proposed activity. Details of any third party rights in relation to the PPI relevant to the proposed transaction. Confirmation that the PPI owns all its own real property. Confirmation that the PPI owns all intellectual property rights of its staff and employees. Particulars of any insurance arrangements of the PPI relating to the proposed transaction. Details of any quotations or tenders relevant to the proposed activities that the PPI has submitted. Details of any liabilities not identified above that are relevant to the PPI or the proposed transaction. Reputational Risks Details of any of the following that are current, pending, threatened or possible in relation to the PPI. any litigation or arbitration proceedings (whether as claimant or defendant); any prosecution; and any investigation or inquiry by a governmental or official body. Details of any existing link with BSU employees relevant to the PPI or the proposed transaction. 11

12 PART 3 Procedure for the approval of new courses delivered by an approved partner 12

13 Part 3 - Procedure for the approval of new courses delivered by an approved partner. Introduction Part 3 provides specific advice and guidance in relation to the development and approval of new courses involving approved partners. In instances where new partners are undergoing the partner approval process it should be noted that planning for course approval events will not be scheduled until both partnership approval and outline plan approval have first been secured. Key contact point Academic Services, Bath Spa University, Newton Park Campus (academicservices@bathspa.ac.uk). Approval process The Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) of the University, on behalf of its Academic Board, is responsible for determining proposals for the approval of any course or provider offering courses leading to an award of the University. New proposals go through a 2 stage process. - Stage 1: Outline planning approval process An outline plan giving all required details (Appendix C) should be drawn up by the proposer, in conjunction with the relevant Dean of School and should normally be taken at a School Board. If approved at School Board the outline plan can then be submitted to the University s Academic Services Unit for circulation to the stakeholders listed in Appendix D for their comment and approval prior to submission to the Vice-Chancellor for final approval. - Stage 2: Course approval process Following a successful outline planning approval, the proposal progresses to detailed planning. To ensure full School oversight, it is strongly advised that the draft documentation for detailed planning is discussed at the relevant School Board, prior to submission to the University s Academic Services unit. Exceptionally, where this is not possible a statement from Dean of School confirming School sign-off should accompany the documentation. To inform its subsequent decisions, the chair of CPC then appoints a panel which considers the proposal on the basis of information provided by the provider, documentation about the course, and structured discussions with the proposed provider, University staff and appropriate external input. The structured discussions normally take place at the premises where the course is to be delivered ( the event ). The purpose of the approval event is to seek assurance that the proposed provider is able to meet the requirements for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities to deliver the course, ensuring the student learning experience, and the equivalence of academic standards, with programmes offered by the University itself. A suggested schedule is given as Appendix E. 13

14 The panel for the approval event will consider the criteria given in Appendix F to establish the integrity and coherence of the course. The panel will also ensure that the course presented for approval aligns or coheres with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education; the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ); subject benchmark statements. Panels will take particular note of the relevant guidance from Part B Chapter B1 of the UK Quality Code: Programme Design, Development and approval (See UK Quality Code Part B Chapter B1). The panel will include: a Chair drawn from the University s senior academic staff; at least one external advisor (plus if possible an employer) with expertise in the discipline area concerned (this may not be an external advisor previously used in the development of any courses developed by the University or by the partner); a member of University staff from a different subject area, preferably a member of CPC; a student from another subject area (from Bath Spa University or one of its partner institutions or organisations) Also in attendance at the event should be a member of the University s academic staff based in the relevant School, who is the link tutor for the partner (if an existing partner) or who is likely to be the link tutor if the award is approved The sponsor of the proposal (normally Dean of School) is responsible for nominating the external advisor panel member(s), at least two nominations are needed for each external advisor post. There should not have been any prior professional relationship with BSU within the last three years. The relevant nomination forms (please see Appendix G) must be submitted to the Head for Quality for approval. The nominations will be noted by CPC. Academic Services will provide an officer to the panel. The approval event should include meetings with senior staff; with relevant teaching staff; a representative panel of support staff (if appropriate) and a representative panel of HE students (if appropriate). The event should also include a tour of the learning resources, and allow for private meetings of the panel and time for the consideration of documentation. The documentation required for the approval event is: Introduction (i.e. mission statement; description of the provider, size, location, HE courses offered; rationale for seeking collaboration with the University, diagram of the organisational structure of the partner college/provider, prospectus) A mapping document that shows how the partner complies with the QAA UK Quality Code. Description of how academic standards are to be managed (i.e. responsibilities for managing standards, reporting structure/committees, arrangements for assessment, including the assessment strategy, arrangements for the analysis of progression and achievement, arrangements for course monitoring and evaluation, information on use of the QAA UK Quality Code) 14

15 Description of how the quality of learning opportunities is managed (i.e. developing learning and teaching, including the learning and teaching strategy, staff development, student support and academic guidance, a learning resource statement, student representation, use of the QAA UK Quality Code. Full staff CVs should be provided. If appropriate the provider should indicate whether new staff appointments will be made following approval (subject to subsequent approval see below) An overview of public information and procedures for ensuring its accuracy and completeness (i.e. information such as promotional materials, web-copy, KIS requirements). Equal opportunities policy Relevant reports (i.e. from external quality assurance agencies or PSRB reports) Student handbook, to be prepared according to the indicative template provided by the University (Academic Services will supply the template) which is in alignment with the University s own Course Planning and Approval Handbook. Documentation should be forwarded by the sponsoring School to the Academic Services unit at least three weeks ahead of the event. The documentation will be shared with the Head of Learning and Teaching, Director of Library Services and the Vice-Provost Research and Enterprise who will advise the chair of the panel on relevant aspects of the documentation. A pro forma for this is available in Appendix H. Approval is course-specific or is for a suite of courses within a subject area. The panel for the approval event may conclude that it wishes to: - recommend approval; - recommend approval with conditions; or - not recommend approval. Where approval is with conditions, the panel shall specify the date by which conditions must be met, and a mechanism by which the fulfilment of conditions shall be tested. Where conditions concern resourcing the panel should take advice from Academic Services as to whether further expertise is needed in ensuring conditions are met. The panel may also make recommendations either to the provider or the University. Recommendations need not hinder the start of the course. A template for the reporting of the approval event is given as Appendix I. An agreement will be prepared by the University outlining the responsibilities of both the University and the provider including, if necessary, an appropriate financial appendix. The outcomes of the event shall be recorded in a written report for CPC, prepared by the officer to the panel. 15

16 PART 4 General administrative arrangements 16

17 General information on administrative arrangements regarding approved courses There will be an operational agreement to support approved provision at each partner which details both partners roles and responsibilities in relation to the management and quality assurance of courses through partner provision. The operational agreement will provide clarity on the following areas: Registration and Fees Regulations Assessment Boards Final Examination and Assessment Boards Appeals Access to University Services Complaints/Disciplinary procedures Graduation The following arrangements apply: - Course modification Academic Services are able to provide guidance on the constitution of minor and major modifications (Major and Minor Modification Guidance) and to provide advice on the processes to be followed. Any major modifications will require the course to be fully re-approved (Stage 2 of the process as above). Any minor modifications to the course will utilise the University procedure. Academic Services will provide the necessary guidance. - Staff changes The relevant Dean of School at the University will be responsible for approving such appointments as per the criteria originally agreed by AQSC (Appendix J), and such approvals will be reported to the appropriate Committee. - Quality assurance Courses offered by other providers must utilise University policy in the areas of mitigating circumstances, work based/placement learning, assessment, personal development planning, AP(E)L, etc. where the courses offered by the partner are the University s courses. Where the University approves courses that are the partner s courses then the partner must have policies in these areas congruent with those in use in UK Higher education. In the latter case these processes will have been approved as part of the approval process. All courses offered by partners will be subject to the University periodic review process. The University will appoint an appropriate external examiner for the course/s. The University will appoint an internal member of academic staff to be the link tutor with the partner for each course (Appendix K for role and duties). 17

18 All courses offered by a partner will be required to submit an annual monitoring report, in line with the University process and policy. This annual monitoring report will be in the same format as that required for the University s own courses unless specifically agreed otherwise. Even in such cases the annual monitoring report will be required to address all the areas required by the University s own process. The University reserves the right to visit the partner should this process raise concerns or queries, or should the same emanate from other sources including for example external examiners reports, student feedback and complaints. Review of Partner Provision All partners will be required to submit a Partner Annual Report (PAR see Appendix L for PAR template), with supporting documentation as specified in the report template, by the end of the Autumn term each year. PARs consider the partner s provision run in partnership with the University as a whole and it is expected that it will be compiled by a staff member at the partner with sufficient oversight of the provision. The PAR will provide the University with an evaluation of the relationship with the partner, as well as enabling the partner to present an overview of their provision and provide the University with feedback on the partnership from an operational and strategic perspective. In addition, all partners will have a review visit, normally every three years. The purpose of the visit is to ensure that their provision is running as would be expected under the terms of the agreement and the relevant QAA UK Quality Code, and to provide an opportunity for the provider to give feedback to the university. The visits comprise a visiting panel of University representatives review of supporting documentation, meetings with programmes leaders, support staff and students. Reports and action plans from the visits are produced and received by the Collaborative Provision Committee. See Appendix M for details of the process and template agenda for review visits. One student representative from each partner delivering Bath Spa University courses will be invited to attend the University s Student Representatives Committee. Partners may not vary the terms of the approval without written agreement of the University. The University will make available a register of collaborative provision arrangements via its website. 18

19 Links to Appendices Appendix A Flowchart outlining processes for new provision with partner providers Appendix B Operational Responsibilities Appendix C Outline Plan Template Appendix D List of Stakeholders for Outline Plans Appendix E Suggested Programme for Approval Event Panels Appendix F Criteria for Approval of Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7 Appendix G Nomination Forms for External Panel Members Appendix H Internal Stakeholder Consultation on Documentation for Approval of New Course(s) Delivered by a Partner Provider Appendix I Template for the Reporting of Approval Events Appendix J Criteria for the Consideration of Staff at Partner Organisations Teaching on BSU Courses of Study Appendix K Role of BSU Link Tutors Appendix L Partner Annual Report (PAR) Template Appendix M Partner Review Visits Process 19