Educational Partnerships Policy Review of Branch Campus Provision Purpose and Scope

Transcription

1 Educational Partnerships Policy Review of Branch Campus Provision Purpose and Scope 1. The Educational Partnerships Policy states the principle that large, complex partnership provision may be subject to a separate review process, in addition to the programmefocussed Learning and Teaching Reviews (LTRs). This separate review process has been named Review of Branch Campus Provision (RBCP) and will always include a visit to the area under review. 2. The current list of Newcastle University provision under the scope of the policy is: a. All programmes and research provision delivered in Singapore b. All programmes delivered in Malaysia, at Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia (NUMed) c. All programmes delivered in London, at Newcastle University London (NUL) in partnership with INTO University Partnerships 3. The need for partnership provision to come under the scope of RBCP shall be established as a part of partner approval. Normally, RBCP will be required because the provision involves the delivery of existing programmes in another location, or involves programmes from a number of subject areas, Schools or Faculties, or the Educational Partnerships Sub-Committee recommend RBCP should take place for other specified reasons. 4. The taught programmes delivered at a partner or other campus will continue to also come under the scope of the LTR process. In most instances, LTRs will be conducted on the Newcastle campus only, with virtual link-up (tele or video conferencing) allowing for the inclusion of staff and students at the partner or international campus in key meetings. Any research programmes will continue to come under the scope of existing Quality Assurance and Enhancement Framework in addition to RBCP. 5. The RBCP will specifically focus upon the following areas: a. The overall student experience and implementation of the Newcastle student offer. b. The standard of the facilities and resources available and their comparability to those available on the Newcastle campus c. The staff employment experience as it relates to learning and teaching including the standard, appropriateness and availability of staff training and how this compares to that available in Newcastle d. How Newcastle policies and procedures relating to learning and teaching are communicated to staff locally and how these are implemented 6. The purpose of this additional review process is to consider broad issues that may not necessarily be captured by the review of the academic programmes. It will provide an opportunity to review across any variety of academic programmes provided at one partner or international campus. The process of the RBCP will allow the review team, and the University, to develop an holistic understanding of the provision and gain assurance that the learning and teaching experience is of a comparable standard to that at Newcastle.

2 7. The RBCP will allow the University to assess the continuing appropriateness of a partner (if applicable) and the range of programmes available. The RBCP process allows the University to better meet the broad expectations of Chapter B10 of the UK Quality Code, by demonstrating its ultimate responsibility for the quality of learning opportunities provided. 8. New partnerships or campuses will be required to undertake RBCP during the third year of operation. Following the initial review, the RBCP will take place every six years, with the preference that RBCP and any LTRs do not occur within the same 12 month period. The Review Team 9. The following principles will apply: a. The Chair shall be a member of senior staff based in Newcastle who has experience of the Educational Partnerships Sub-Committee or the University Internationalisation Committee. b. The External Expert shall be someone with broad experience of the provision under review and of international higher education. The external expert shall be paid a fee for their participation; the rate will match that paid for involvement in LTR, multiplied by the number of days the review is scheduled for and including travel days. c. The review team shall also include one representative nominated by ULTSEC and one representative nominated by FLTSEC, with preference given to those with suitable experience of partnership/ international collaboration, and including, where appropriate, a member with experience of PGR student issues. Preferably, one member should be recruited from another partner or international campus that comes under the scope of this policy. d. There shall be representative nominated by the Newcastle University Student Union, normally either the President or the Education Officer. e. The Secretary shall be a member of the Learning and Teaching Development Service. 10. Additional members will be recruited on to the review team when this is deemed to be necessary. 11. The membership of the review team shall be approved by the Chair of the Educational Partnership Sub-Committee. 12. The Chair and Secretary shall be confirmed at least six months prior to the review visit to allow for sufficient preparation. The Review process 13. The Chair and Secretary of Educational Partnership Sub-Committee shall identify at the end of each academic year whether an RBCP requires scheduling for the following academic year. The schedule will be published annually on the Educational Partnerships website. 14. When the need for an RBCP is identified, the secretary of the Educational Partnerships Sub- Committee shall liaise with the relevant faculties to identify a named contact within each faculty office. 15. The EPSC secretary and the faculty contact shall then liaise with the partner or international campus to establish a rough time period for the visit to take place.

3 16. The EPSC secretary and chair shall confirm who will be acting as the RBCP secretary and chair, and provide them with the details of the named faculty contact and enquiries made to date. 17. The RBCP secretary, in consultation with the RBCP chair, shall establish an exact date for the review visit and confirm other panel members. Final RBCP visit dates must be agreed with the faculty and the partner or international campus. The final RBCP review team membership shall be approved by the Chair of EPSC. 18. The RBCP chair, secretary and faculty contact shall agree on the best method and format of providing a briefing to the partner or international campus staff in advance of the RBCP visit. Pre-Visit Preparation The Desk-based Exercise 19. In advance of the review visit, the RBCP secretary will conduct a desk-based exercise to identify any areas of good practice and any areas requiring more detailed consideration. 20. The desk-based exercise will focus on existing documentation including; a. Documentation provided as part of partner approval or renewal b. Professional body reviews and reports c. University quality management documentation including LTR/ ISR reports, AMR, PGR annual reports, external examiner reports d. Sample of committee meeting minutes in particular Board of Studies, Student Staff Committee e. Survey data including module evaluation, NSS or equivalent f. Documentation relating to Staff Development Unit activity and/ or other faculty or site specific staff training opportunities g. Any documentation put forward by the faculty or location staff 21. The desk-based exercise will be shared with the faculty contact for the purposes of factchecking. 22. The desk-based exercise, along with a copy of all of the source material, will be provided to the review team approximately six weeks prior to the review visit.

4 The SWOT Analysis 23. In advance of the review visit, the partner or international campus will liaise with the faculty contact to complete a SWOT analysis covering each of the four areas of the review. 24. The SWOT analysis will be provided to the review team via the secretary approximately six weeks prior to the review visit. 25. The Policy and Procedure for Learning and Teaching Review includes useful guidance about developing a SWOT. However for RPCP there is no document length limit. Pre-Visit meeting of the Review Panel 26. Approximately one month prior to the review visit, the review team will meet to consider the results of the desk-based exercise and the SWOT analysis. As a minimum, the Chair and Secretary shall meet, with consultation with other review team members by tele/ video conferencing or The purpose of the pre-visit meeting is to: a. Establish main areas of interest, and whether the team wishes to meet any particular staff during the visit to explore these areas further b. Agree on the structure of the meetings and groups c. Agree a list of topics/ questions to share with the partner or campus in advance of the visit. Practical arrangements 28. Practical arrangements for the visit (including travel, local transport, accommodation, room bookings and catering) will be co-ordinated by the secretary to the RBCP team, liaising with the faculty contact and staff at the partner or international campus. 29. The secretary shall liaise directly with the staff at the partner or international campus in finalising the visit schedule and ensuring that the appropriate staff and student groups are available to participate in meetings. 30. The final costs of each review visit will be covered by the relevant cost centre (faculty, company or joint venture dependent on the operation and established at the time of partner approval). Any issues arising that relate to costs (for example the class of air travel, or the choice of hotel) should be resolved by the secretary in consultation with the faculty contact.

5 The Review Visit 31. The involvement of students in the RBCP process is essential; therefore the visit should be scheduled during teaching time, but avoiding major assessment periods. If the partner or international campus has a weekly period of non-teaching (in Newcastle, traditionally Wednesday afternoons) the timing of the visit might make use of this opportunity when staff and students may have fewer time-specific commitments. 32. The exact duration of the review visit shall be established by the Chair. As a general rule, two full days should be expected to be the norm. Meetings shall be scheduled to accommodate other local commitments, but make the best use of the review team s time and allow the review team to conduct a full and thorough review process. 33. Meetings should be no longer than 1.5 hours in length and should be followed by a break of at least 30 minutes to allow the review team to summarise their findings and make commendations or recommendations for inclusion in the final report. 34. There should be an opportunity in one or more of the scheduled meetings for students to speak without the presence of local staff. 35. Similarly, there should be an opportunity in one or more of the scheduled meetings for staff to speak without the presence of senior management. 36. The review visit shall conclude with a short meeting with key staff to provide immediate verbal feedback on the conclusions of the visit. The Review Report and Recommendations 37. Following the review visit, the secretary will produce a draft report summarising the commendations, good practice and recommendations. The report will incorporate the findings from the desk-based exercise, documentation and SWOT analysis as well as information gathered during the review visit. The review team will be given the opportunity to comment on the report before it is sent to the faculty contact and partner or international campus for fact-checking. 38. A copy of the draft report shall be submitted to the faculty contact and partner or international campus within four weeks of the review visit. 39. Following fact-checking, the final report shall be sent to the partner or international campus and all relevant Boards of Studies for consideration. Boards of Studies should reflect on the report and arising actions in the Annual Monitoring and Review report. 40. The report shall also be sent to the next available meeting of EPSC, for information and to identify any particular urgent issues that may require action or referral to ULTSEC. The RBCP secretary shall ensure that the faculty contact is informed of any actions or referrals made at this stage, to avoid any duplication. 41. The faculty contact shall co-ordinate Faculty consideration of the report and shall ensure that comments are received from the partner or international campus and all relevant Boards of Studies prior to consideration at FLTSEC. If necessary, following FLTSEC consideration, the faculty contact will also seek views from other faculty level committees, for example Faculty

6 Steering Group (FSG) or bodies specific to the partner or international campus (e.g. the NUMed working group in FMS). The full faculty response and any resulting action plan shall be forwarded to the RBCP secretary, who shall report it on to EPSC. 42. Once the Faculty response is available (noting that an RBCP may affect more than one Faculty) EPSC shall consider the report in full, with a particular focus on any University directed recommendations. 43. Following EPSC, the RBCP secretary shall co-ordinate any further actions or responses to the report that may be required from professional support services or other central groups, ensuring that the faculty contact is kept informed. 44. It is the responsibility of the RBCP secretary to maintain a log of consideration of all recommendations and any actions arising from them, as reported through the faculty, EPSC and ULTSEC. 45. The log will be considered by EPSC 6 months and then 12 months after the initial visit to establish whether appropriate follow-up has taken place. The conclusions of EPSC will be reported to ULTSEC as part of its standard report, unless there are major issues that require particular attention and additional follow-up. Approved by ULTSEC February Intended for use by: Contact (for queries about this document): Proposers of new partnerships Degree Programme Directors of existing partnerships School Administrators Faculty Learning and Teaching Support Teams Research and Enterprise Services International Office ltds@ncl.ac.uk /3978