Collaborative Provision (Re)Validation and (Re)Approval

Section 2: Collaborative Provision (Re)Validation and (Re) Approval Regulations

 

2.1 Validation Process – Normal to High Risk Events

2.1.1 (Re)Validation will not be confirmed until after APB has approved the report of the event (even when all validation conditions have been satisfied prior to committee approval).

 

2.2 Validation Process – Low Risk CP Events

2.2.1 Low risk CP events must always be approved by APB and must follow APB’s prescribed validation outline. There may be variations in terms of panel composition and attendees compared to a full validation event.

 

2.3 Validation Events for New Partners

2.3.1 Where a Collaborative Provision partner is completely new to the University, two collaborative provision validation events must be held:

• An Institutional Approval event:
  • Purpose: to consider if the partner’s educational objectives align with the University strategy map and to make sure the partner is compatible with the University.
  • Partner attendees: should include the senior leadership team at the partner institution. The lead academic proposing the collaborative provision should also attend to support the partner.
  • Panel composition: the University’s Pro Vice-Chancellor or nominee must chair the event and the panel must include a Senior Member of Registry and Academic Development. A member of Quality Assurance will facilitate the meeting and produce a written report.
  • Location: when the new partner is based overseas, then the institutional approval event will be held at the partner location unless APB is satisfied that senior leadership team members have previously visited the partner location and approved it for delivery. Where the institutional approval is held at the partner location, this must be factored into the validation costs.
• A validation event:
  • Purpose: to consider the partner’s ability to teach the University’s courses.
  • Partner attendees: all members of the intended teaching team at the partner institution must attend the validation event along with any other relevant staff at the partner. Members of the University teaching team involved in delivery at the partner must also attend the validation.
  • Panel composition: the University chair must be a senior academic from an independent school. The panel must include an external academic(s) with experience of both collaborative provision and the subject area(s), a member of computing and library services and independent subject expert(s) from the school(s) offering the provision. The Director of Registry and Academic Development or nominee (usually a member of the Quality Assurance team) must be a panel member. They will also facilitate the meeting and produce a written report.
  • Location: the validation event will usually be a virtual event, unless APB requests that the event should be held at the partner institution to mitigate risk.

2.3.2 Where a new partner is requesting to join the University Consortium and intends to offer University courses in the UK, then only one validation event may be required. This event will cover both the institutional approval and validation aspects. In instances where the risk associated with a new partner is perceived to be greater, then APB may request that two separate validation events are held.

 

2.4 (Re)Validation Panel Expectations

2.4.1 Before a collaborative provision (re)validation event, panel members must:

• Read all documentation provided before the event, including any course documentation.
• Consider the rationale document.
• Submit questions for the partner ahead of the event.

 

2.5 Validation Events for Existing Partners

2.5.1 Should existing partners wish to offer any additional provision at the University whilst still under a contract, they will be required to undergo a validation event for that new provision. This will only be the case if APB is satisfied that a validation event provides sufficient scrutiny to mitigate any risk.

2.5.2 The panel composition will be the same as that for a new partner validation event, unless APB requests a different panel composition.

 

2.6 Documents Required for Institutional Approval and Validation Events

2.6.1 Institutional approval and validation events require documentation to be submitted by the partner institution. The lead academic and school(s) involved may contribute to this documentation where relevant.

2.6.2 This may be slightly different depending on the type of collaborative provision arrangement. For:

• ODUPLUS or franchised courses, the documentation must be detailed enough so that the University can assess the ability of the partner to deliver University courses.
• designed and delivered courses, the documentation must be detailed enough so that the University can determine the course is of sufficient quality for the University to validate as well as demonstrating the partner’s ability to deliver the course.

2.6.3 Where documentation does not contain enough detail for a panel to assess a partner’s ability to deliver the courses, the Reviews and Partnerships team may request revisions and this may impact the validation date and start date of the partnership.

2.6.4 The following documents should be submitted for institutional approval and validation events:

• Rationale documentation paying particular attention to strategy and management (see Appendix 7 for a copy of the Rationale Template for Institutional Approval). This should include:
  • Any strengths of the partner institution.
• General introduction to the partner institution.
• The institutional setting, namely range of provision, size, and management structure, and if overseas, its position within the local higher education system.
• Confirmation of the location and delivery of the courses.
• Confirmation that the partner can supply any specialist facilities or equipment.
• Confirmation of the proposed start date of teaching of the University course, highlighting where intakes differ to a September start.
• History of relationship with the University (if any) and/or other experience of HE provision.
• Organisation and management of the partner institution.
• Approaches to academic management and development.
• Teaching, learning and assessment strategies.
• Procedures for resource allocation and monitoring.
• Management of standards.
• Student support mechanisms.
• Quality assurance processes.
• Approaches to quality.
• Copies of relevant internal policies, procedures and plans
• CVs of any staff teaching on the courses at the partner institution
• Validation documentation:
  • for courses proposed for franchised and ODUPLUS delivery, it is likely that a validation exercise will already have considered and approved courses. Where this has happened, the documentation submitted as part of the validation process must include the validated programme specification and module documentation.
  • for designed and delivered courses where the course is the intellectual property of the partner, the approval event must include the programme specification document, module specification documents and related appendices.

 

2.7 Late Documentation

2.7.1 Validation documentation must be submitted three weeks before the date of the first event. If the documentation is not submitted in this timeframe, then the validation event may be rescheduled, potentially impacting the start date of the partnership.

2.7.2 The panel chair and the Reviews and Partnerships team must liaise with APB to assess the risk involved in rescheduling an event. The lead academic and partner should be notified of the full impact of late documentation submission.

2.8 Revalidation and Institutional Reapproval Events

2.8.1 Existing collaborative provision partners must usually undergo a revalidation and institutional reapproval event in the fourth academic year of their contract. The revalidation and reapproval events will follow the same format as the validation and institutional approval events and require similar documentation to be submitted three weeks before the event.

2.8.2 In addition to the rationale document, the partner must supply a breakdown of student progression, outcomes and projected student numbers.

2.8.3 Panel members may request to see examples of student work as part of a revalidation event.

 

2.9 Student Meetings – (Re)Validation Events

2.9.1 Members of the panel of a revalidation and reapproval event must meet students ahead of revalidation events to gain feedback on the student experience. This feedback must then be addressed during the revalidation event.

2.9.2 Ahead of the student meeting, the University lead academic and teaching team at the partner must supply a list of students from all years of any University courses taught at the partner institution and this should include recent graduates.

2.9.3 Usually the student meeting will involve the panel chair and the external academic with a member of Quality Assurance attending to take notes. The meeting report must not contain any student names.

 

2.10 Documentation Outlining Staff Involvement at a Partner Institution on University Provision

Academic Staff at a Partner Institution

2.10.1 Designed and delivered and franchised collaborative provision proposals must include details of academic teaching staff who are not employed by the University including their CVs. The University must approve any member of staff at a partner who is involved in the delivery, support or assessment of a University course.

Other Support Staff at a Partner Institution

2.10.2 Schools must submit documentation at validation giving details of any administrative staff or those involved in pastoral duties for students.

New Teaching Staff Appointed at a Partner After Validation

2.10.3 Where a partner appoints a new member of staff to the delivery team of a course validated by the University, their CV must be approved by the School Senior Leadership Team (SLT) before they start teaching.

 

2.11 Alternative Site Approval Procedures

2.11.1 If it is not possible to visit teaching facilities during a validation event, Quality Assurance and the Chair of APB must consider the most appropriate way to check delivery sites as follows:

• Video footage of the new location may be submitted to APB for approval.
• Where there is no fixed delivery site, see the Risk Assessment form in Appendix 8 for a new delivery location can be completed by the course team and submitted to APB for approval ahead of any teaching at a new location.
• When possible, the Chair of the event and a member of Quality Assurance should visit new collaborative provision partner institution locations before teaching begins.
• In some instances, an independent member of University staff visiting the partner location may carry out the delivery site approval.

 

2.12 Reports following a (re)validation event

2.12.1 Following a (re)validation event, the Reviews and Partnerships team must normally produce a report within 4 to 6 weeks of the event which:

• outlines the main discussion of the event and summarises any student meeting held.
• lists any conditions of validation.
• must be approved by APB once conditions of validation have been met.

(Re)validation Outcomes

2.12.2 In all (re)validation events, the panel must consider if a partnership would present a risk to the University standards and reputation, or if they are satisfied that the partner can work within the University regulations and procedures to mitigate any risk.

2.12.3 The outcome of a (re)validation event is usually:

• To (re)validate a partner.
• To (re)validate a partner subject to conditions of validation.
• Not to (re)validate a partner.

Conditions of validation

2.12.4 Where there are conditions of validation, the partner must work with the course team and lead academic to complete them by the confirmed date, usually within 6 weeks of the event taking place.

2.12.5 Should the conditions not be completed by the confirmed date, this may cause delays to the contract and impact the partner’s intended teaching date. The Reviews and Partnerships team will make sure the partner and lead academic are clear about the potential impact of any delays.

Decline to (Re)validate

2.12.6 A panel may decide that they are not confident in the partner’s ability to successfully deliver a University course as part of a (re)validation event. In this instance, the Chair must provide appropriate feedback to the partner at the end of the validation meeting. The report of the event must contain full details of the areas of weakness and risk highlighted by the panel.

 

2.13 Contract of Collaboration

2.13.1 A collaborative provision arrangement cannot begin teaching without a signed Contract of Collaboration in place. A Contract of Collaboration is an operational contract (note that this is different to any initial contract, memorandum of understanding or tender award issued at the very start of a Collaboration agreement between the University and an institution). The Contract of Collaboration:

• Contains the specifics of how a course will operate between the University and the partner.
• Is triggered via the Legal Office at the start of the collaborative provision (re)validation process.

2.13.2 Contracts of Collaboration must be issued for the period of approval for each agreement (usually five years) and must be re-issued on revalidation.

2.13.3 The school must complete Schedule 1 of the contract before it is sent to the partner.

2.13.4 The Contract of Collaboration must be signed by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and the Principal (or equivalent) of the external institution. The Contract of Collaboration will be valid for the period of validation only and will be re-issued at each re-validation point.

 

2.14 Changes to the Contract of Collaboration

2.14.1 If a collaborative provision partner has an additional course from the same school validated part-way through their five-year contract, the new course may be validated for the period remaining on the main contract of collaboration.

2.14.2 The Legal Office must be informed of any additional content that is validated so that they can issue a side letter to the contract confirming additional details. A different contract will be issued if a new course is offered by a different school.

2.14.3 The Legal Office must be informed of any major changes at the partner institution such as a name change, a merger with another education establishment or if a partner or the University wishes to exit the partnership before the end of the contract.

 

2.15 Financial Appendix

2.15.1 A financial appendix (see Appendix 9) must be produced and signed by the school responsible for the CP course in advance of each academic session.

 

2.16 Financial Arrangements for Collaborative Provision

2.16.1 The financial arrangements for each collaborative activity are negotiated between the school and the external institution. The school must consult with the Director of Finance to ensure that the proposed arrangements are acceptable to the University. The financial arrangements must cover academic teaching staff costs and professional services costs as well as other considerations such as travel arrangements where applicable.

2.16.2 The cost of the validation/revalidation is usually covered by the collaborating institution. Finance is responsible for the collection of the validation fee and its allocation as appropriate, and all incidental expenses.