Download
1 / 19
190 likes | 301 Vues
Collaborating with the Quality Code. Christopher J Cox Head of Collaborative Partnerships, Nottingham Trent University. Plan for this session:. Brief outline of the character of Collaborative Provision at NTU;
E N D
Collaborating with the Quality Code Christopher J Cox Head of Collaborative Partnerships, Nottingham Trent University
Plan for this session: • Brief outline of the character of Collaborative Provision at NTU; • Relationship of the two key departments to business approval and academic approval and monitoring; • Section B10 – Indicators we have acted (or will act) on; • Section B10 – Indicators still causing scratching of heads; and • One or two ideas
Categories: Risk School-based collaborative categories in order of risk:
Business Approval and Quality Assurance: Lead School(s) BUSINESS APPROVAL Collaborative Partnerships Office ACADEMIC APPROVAL Centre for Academic Development and Quality
B10 Important Indicators for NTU: • Done or doing: 3 – 5 – 7 – 10 – 15 and 18 • Still trying to work out: 2 – 7 and 9 (quickly - Audit’s coming in 2014!)
Done or doing – Indicator 3 Policies and procedures ensure that there are adequate safeguards against financial impropriety or conflicts of interest that might compromise academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities. Consideration of the business case is conducted separately from approval of the academic proposal. ACTIVITY:New collaborative framework (2011/2) entirely separated business and academic approval, standardised (enhanced) the Business Case documentation used and the processes for Due Diligence (internal and external)
Done or doing - Indicator 5 The risks of each arrangement to deliver learning opportunities with others are assessed at the outset and reviewed subsequently on a periodic basis. Appropriate and proportionate safeguards to manage the risks of the various arrangements are determined and put in place. ACTIVITY: Academic references from earlier collaborators for all new partners. Review cycle shortened to 3 years in all cases which can be reduced in the case of problems. Each 3-year review includes a business case and DD to be done from the ‘ground up’ each time, and tests the case made 3 years earlier. Academic approval sets conditions that have to be met before operations begin – or start dates can be delayed!
Done or doing - Indicator 7 There is a written and legally binding agreement, or other document, setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored and reviewed. It is signed by the authorised representatives of the degree-awarding body (or higher education provider without degree-awarding powers arranging provision by a third party) and by the delivery organisation, support provider or partner(s) before the relevant activity commences. ACTIVITY: Standardised, single version, copy-protected University contract. Only one for each type of arrangement (ditto MoUs). Always prepared by the same Legal Services unit, and only they will discuss deviations from the norm. All High-Risk group contracts go to VC for briefing then signature.
Done or doing - Indicator 10 All higher education providers maintain records (by type and category) of all arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with others that are subject to a formal agreement. ACTIVITY: NTU now has a standard collaborative framework document for each partnership that details the operation 3 years ahead. Has to pass academic approval and is directly referenced in the legal agreement signed by us and by the partner. New collaborative frameworks of this sort are now available ‘off the peg’ for multiple school partnerships (more of these exist now) and other partnerships going into ‘teach out’.
Done or doing - Indicator 15 Degree-awarding bodies ensure that delivery organisations involved in the assessment of students understand and follow the assessment requirements approved by the degree-awarding body for the components or programmes being assessed in order to maintain its academic standards. In the case of joint, dual/double and multiple awards or for study abroad and student exchanges, degree-awarding bodies agree with their partners on the division of assessment responsibilities and the assessment regulations and requirements which apply. ACTIVITY: The framework for each arrangement, of all types, sets up obligations, schedules etc. of assessment protocols, agreed at academic approval, reviewed by NTU committees.
Done or doing - Indicator 18 Degree-awarding bodies ensure that they have effective control over the accuracy of all public information, publicity and promotional activity relating to learning opportunities delivered with others which lead to their awards. Information is produced for prospective and current students which is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy. Delivery organisations or support providers are provided with all information necessary for the effective delivery of the learning or support. ACTIVITY: NTU keeps a quarterly log of regular checks on all publicity and marketing material, with a particular emphasis on Validation arrangements. This includes websites and also a phase of the sign-off of all pre-application prospectuses.
Head-scratchers- Indicator 2 Governance arrangements at appropriate levels are in place for all learning opportunities which are not directly provided by the degree-awarding body. Arrangements for learning to be delivered, or support to be provided, are developed, agreed and managed in accordance with the formally stated policies and procedures of the degree-awarding body. QUESTIONS: We asked at the time of the consultation on B10 what ‘appropriate’ means here. If we are talking about the NTU individual academic and committee hierarchy that scrutinises monitoring, then no problem. If we are asked here to investigate all forms of partner governance, then this needs to become more explicit within the collaborative framework.
Head-scratchers- Indicator 7 (yes, again!) There is a written and legally binding agreement, or other document, setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, which is regularly monitored and reviewed. It is signed by the authorised representatives of the degree-awarding body (or higher education provider without degree-awarding powers arranging provision by a third party) and by the delivery organisation, support provider or partner(s) before the relevant activity commences. QUESTION: What of the business of more than one contract? Cases where we are asked to sign a partner’s contract as well? Does this indicator mean ‘at least one… agreement’?
Head-scratchers- Indicator 9 Degree-awarding bodies retain responsibility for ensuring that students admitted to a programme who wish to complete it under their awarding authority can do so in the event that a delivery organisation or support provider or partner withdraws from an arrangement or that the degree-awarding body decides to terminate an arrangement. QUESTIONS? How far are collaborating Universities building this into their business and academic approval processes? Is there an expectation that we will have a list of alternative institutions or private-hire academics to hand, for fear of a partner going insolvent, for example, and their students being too far away to take advantage of our home provision?
A couple of ideas • Consider the role of the Partnerships website at your institution • Combining activities at points of engagement
Useful NTU Websites Centre for Academic Development and Quality: http://www.ntu.ac.uk/cadq/index.html Collaborative Partnerships Office: http://www.ntu.ac.uk/cpo
Thanks! christopher.j.cox@ntu.ac.uk
