2019

Academic Quality and Development

London Metropolitan University

8/22/2019

Quality Manual

1 | P a g e

Contents Quality Assurance and Enhancement at London Metropolitan University ................................. 5

1. Academic quality and standards .................................................................................................. 5 2. London Met’s approach to quality management .......................................................................... 5 3. Academic Quality and Development (AQD) ................................................................................ 6 4. Support for quality ....................................................................................................................... 7

Course Development and Design Policy ........................................................................................ 8 1. Internal and external reference points ......................................................................................... 8 2. Course development and approval .............................................................................................. 8 3. Course modifications, suspension or closure .............................................................................. 9

Standard Validation Process .......................................................................................................... 10 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10 2 Stage 1 - approval of business cases ........................................................................................ 10 3 Stage 2 - The validation event ................................................................................................... 10 4 Appointment of external advisors .............................................................................................. 11 5 Purpose of the validation panel ................................................................................................. 11 6 Paperwork required for a standard validation ............................................................................ 12 7. Internal review ........................................................................................................................... 12 8. Standard validation event agenda ............................................................................................. 12 9. Validation panel role descriptor ................................................................................................. 13 10. Standard validation outcomes ................................................................................................ 14 11. The standard validation report ............................................................................................... 15 12. Next steps in the process ....................................................................................................... 15

Fast Track Validation Process ...................................................................................................... 17 13. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 17 14. Stage 1 - Approval of Fast Track Business Cases ................................................................ 17 15. Stage 2 - The Fast Track Validation Event ............................................................................ 17 17. Purpose of the Fast Track Validation Panel ........................................................................... 18 18. Paperwork required for a Fast Track Validation ..................................................................... 18 19. Indicative Fast Track Validation Agenda ................................................................................ 19 20. Validation Panel Role Descriptor ........................................................................................... 19 21. Fast Track Validation Outcomes ............................................................................................ 21 22. The Fast Track Validation Report .......................................................................................... 21 23. Next Steps in the Process ...................................................................................................... 22

Continuous Monitoring Policy ....................................................................................................... 24 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 24

2 | P a g e

2. Continuous Monitoring............................................................................................................... 24 3. Levels of Reporting ................................................................................................................... 25 4. Timelines ................................................................................................................................... 26

Continuous Monitoring Process .................................................................................................... 27 1. Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 27 2. Timelines ................................................................................................................................... 27 3. Module Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 28 4. Course Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 29 5. Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMs) .......................................................................... 30 6. Cluster Monitoring (London Met Provision Only) ....................................................................... 31 7. Partnership Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 31 8. School Level Oversight.............................................................................................................. 32 9. Institutional Oversight ................................................................................................................ 33 10. Support .................................................................................................................................... 33 11. Continuous Monitoring Checkpoints/Deadlines ..................................................................... 33

Periodic Review Policy .................................................................................................................. 35 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 36 2. Periodic Review ......................................................................................................................... 36 3 Course Suspension or Closure .................................................................................................. 37

Periodic Review Process ............................................................................................................... 38 1. Periodic Review ......................................................................................................................... 38 2. Stage 1 - Setting a date for the Periodic Review Event ............................................................. 38 3. Appointment of External Advisors ............................................................................................. 38 4. Paperwork required for a Periodic Review ................................................................................ 38 5. Internal Review .......................................................................................................................... 39 6. Indicative Periodic Review Event Agenda ................................................................................. 39 7. Periodic Review Panel Role Descriptor ..................................................................................... 39 8. Periodic Review Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 42 9. The Periodic Review Reports .................................................................................................... 42

External Examiner Policy ............................................................................................................... 44 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 44 2. External Examining at London Met ............................................................................................ 44

External Examiner Process ............................................................................................................ 46 1. External Examiners nomination/extension/ reallocation of duties process ................................ 46 2. Subject Standards Board (SSB) and Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM) ................... 48 3. External Examiners’ Annual report ............................................................................................ 48 4. External Examiners activities calendar ...................................................................................... 50

3 | P a g e

Student Engagement Overview ..................................................................................................... 52 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 52 2. Student Engagement Overview ................................................................................................. 52 3. Student Engagement in Quality Processes ............................................................................... 52 4. Surveys ..................................................................................................................................... 52 5. Student Engagement at Collaborative Partners ........................................................................ 53 6. Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 53

Course Modifications Policy .......................................................................................................... 54 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 54 2. Course Modifications ................................................................................................................. 54

Course Modifications Process ....................................................................................................... 55 1. Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 55 2. Types of Modification................................................................................................................. 55 3. Timelines for Modifications ........................................................................................................ 57 4. Process - Material Modifications ................................................................................................ 57 5. Process Non-Material Modifications .......................................................................................... 58 6. Monitoring Modifications ............................................................................................................ 58

Course Suspension and Closure Policy ....................................................................................... 60 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 60 2. Course Suspension ................................................................................................................... 60 3. Course Closure.......................................................................................................................... 60

Course Suspension and Closure Process .................................................................................... 61 1. Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 61 2. Course Suspension ................................................................................................................... 61

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) Policy .................................................... 64 1. Internal and External Reference Points ..................................................................................... 64 2. PSRBs ....................................................................................................................................... 64

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) Process ................................................ 65 1. PSRB (re)accreditation planning ............................................................................................... 65 2. PSRB reporting ......................................................................................................................... 65 3. PSRB termination or withdrawal ................................................................................................ 67 4. PSRB record ............................................................................................................................. 67

Collaborative Academic Partnerships Policy ............................................................................... 68 1. Reference Points ....................................................................................................................... 68 2. London Met Collaborative Academic Provision ......................................................................... 68 3. Collaborative Policies and Procedures ...................................................................................... 69

Collaborative Academic Partnerships Processes ........................................................................ 70

4 | P a g e

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 70 2. Overview of Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 70 3. Due Diligence and Institutional Approval procedure for a new Collaborative Academic Partner ...................................................................................................................................................71 4. Process for Approval of new sites or campuses of approved institutions .................................. 83 5. Process for Suspension or Closure of courses delivered by Collaborative Academic Partners 95 6. Process for Termination of Collaborative Academic Partnerships ............................................ 95

Short Courses Policy ...................................................................................................................... 98 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 98 2. School Short Course Co-ordination ........................................................................................... 98 3. Short Courses Log..................................................................................................................... 98 4. Involvement of AQD Business Partners .................................................................................... 99

Short Courses Process ................................................................................................................ 100 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 100 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 104

5 | P a g e

Quality Assurance and Enhancement at London Metropolitan University 1. Academic quality and standards

1.1 London Metropolitan University (London Met) identifies that the quality assurance and enhancement of our courses is a key priority in ensuring a positive student experience in a thriving academic community. This includes assuring that the standards of qualifications are set at appropriate levels and that confidence can be placed on the quality of the learning experience at London Met.

1.2 London Met aims to ensure high quality learning experiences and courses by:

• Ensuring that all benchmarks of quality are met through uniform and timely quality assurance and enhancement policies and processes.

• Reviewing the course and research portfolio regularly to meet changing student expectations and research needs or opportunities,

• Celebrating the education and research emphasis of different schools and partner institutions, whilst ensuring common high standards of pedagogy, assessment, award and publication,

• Actively involving students as partners in our quality assurance processes at all levels.

1.3 Quality assurance and enhancement processes and procedures have been designed to meet the core practices of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Quality Code, internal (Academic Regulations, General Student Regulations) and external reference points such as Competition and Markets Authority guidance.

2. London Met’s approach to quality management

2.1 Overall responsibility and leadership for quality at London Met lies with the Vice Chancellor, with fulfilment of this responsibility being delegated to the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), supported by other members of the Senior Leadership Team as appropriate.

2.2 The oversight, management and implementation of quality assurance and enhancement procedures at university level is monitored by Academic Board and the Board of Governors, with the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC) ensuring and reporting on the operation of quality processes and procedures.

2.3 At School level, the responsibility for quality assurance and enhancement lies with all staff with management and oversight being the responsibility of the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committees. AQD and other Professional Service Departments support the implementation and management of quality processes.

6 | P a g e

2.4 London Met’s quality processes and procedures are defined and embedded in the Academic Regulations, Quality Manual, and university structures.

3. Academic Quality and Development (AQD)

3.1 Academic Quality and Development (AQD) provides a range of quality assurance and enhancement services to the Academic Schools, Professional Service Departments, and Collaborative Academic Partners of London Met.

3.2 AQD works with academic schools, departments and partners to ensure and assist in the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the University’s educational provision, including provision at Collaborative Academic Partners. AQD does this by supporting, managing, and having oversight of London Met’s quality assurance and enhancement policies, processes and procedures.

3.3 AQD is responsible for the administration and management of London Met’s quality assurance and enhancement processes. The key responsibilities include:

• Leading on and managing the development and implementation of London Met’s quality assurance and enhancement strategies, policies and procedures;

• Supporting and advising schools through the Business Partner function on the approval of new courses, and modification, periodic review and monitoring of existing courses;

• Supporting and advising collaborative partners on the institutional and course approval, and critical review/monitoring processes;

• Providing administrative support for London Met schools and collaborative partners in relation to quality assurance and enhancement processes;

• Management and administration of London Met’s’ External Examiner policy and process;

• Acting as Officers to London Met’s central committees including Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQ) and Academic Portfolio Committee (APC);

• Acting as Members for London Met’s committees including LTQC, Academic Portfolio Committee, Academic Board, School level LTQC and validation and periodic review panels;

• Managing the implementation and reporting of course and module surveys;

• Acting as London Met’s representative and key point of contact for external bodies, such as the QAA, MSCHE and PSRBs in relation to London Met’s responsibilities for quality and standards.

7 | P a g e

4. Support for quality

4.1 Support for quality processes in schools and at collaborative partners is provided by AQD, Student Journey, and the Centre for Enhancement of Professional Development. This can be in the form of supporting course committees, logging course information or providing staff development support.

8 | P a g e

Course Development and Design Policy 1. Internal and external reference points

1.1 The London Met policy and process for course design have been developed in consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, and the QAA Advice and Guidance on Course Development and Design published in November 2018.

1.2 Course teams should consult and consider internal (Academic Regulations, General Student Regulations) and external reference points in the development of courses including Subject Benchmark Statements, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England (FHEQ), Apprenticeship Standards and any Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements.

2. Course development and approval

2.1 London Met aims to develop and provide courses that meet appropriate threshold standards, provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and provide students with a high quality experience and positive outcomes. To ensure this all courses at London Met, including those at collaborative partners are subject to course development, approval and validation procedures.

2.2 Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has delegated responsibility on behalf of Academic Board for the business case approval of new courses at London Met and its collaborative partners. Once a business case is approved, AQD appoints validation and periodic review panels to consider course approval at Validation and Periodic Review events. Outcomes of Validation and Periodic Review events must be confirmed by the Chair of each panel before courses can commence.

2.3 Course teams must follow the course development and approval process and a course will not go to validation until a completed business case is submitted and approved by APC. Collaborative Partners will also need to have an approved business case and progression to a validation event will only occur once institutional approval is in place.

2.4 Once a business case is approved by APC, the course will need to be validated within two academic year cycles. If the validation is not completed within the time, the course team will need to revise and resubmit the business case proposal to APC. This is to ensure that the curriculum is still relevant and that there is a market demand for the course.

2.5 Courses are approved through a validation event, for partners the event will usually take place at the partner institution. Validation events will include internal and external panel members including academic and industry

9 | P a g e

representatives, and a student panel member. The panels will confirm that threshold standards are met for the course to be approved.

2.6 Course design and validation events take into consideration any requirements from PSRBs where applicable, and ensure that any naming conventions related to courses with PSRB requirements are met. Where a validation event is jointly held with the PSRB, London Met will ensure that all the PSRB requirements are covered within the joint event.

2.7 Courses are normally approved for a period of 5 years. Thereafter they will be expected to be revalidated through the periodic review process. Collaborative Academic Partner courses are initially approved for a 3 year period, or as outlined in the collaborative agreement.

3. Course modifications, suspension or closure 3.1 Changes to courses are subject to modification procedures as outlined in

section 7 of the Quality Manual. Courses that exceed material modifications of 30% of core modules, or 20% of core modules and another material change such as a change of title in a validation cycle will trigger a Periodic Review.

3.2 Course that are suspending intakes, closing or terminating are subject to procedures outlined in section 8 of the quality manual. Collaborative partners will also be subject to additional requirements, as outlined in section 11.

10 | P a g e

Standard Validation Process 1. Introduction 1.1 All new course proposals are required to go through the validation process.

Validation ensures that a newly developed course meets threshold standards, meets the London Met strategic plan and ensures a positive student experience and outcomes. It is a peer review process involving a panel of internal staff, external advisors, students, academics, industry experts and students.

2. Stage 1 - approval of business cases 2.1 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) is responsible under delegated authority

from the Academic Board for the development and oversight of the University’s internal and collaborative portfolio. The Committee considers business cases for new course development against criteria such as market demand, unique selling points and contribution to the University’s mission.

2.2 The APC will also examine the nature and likelihood of any risks that may be posed by the proposed development of a new course. Depending on the level of risk, either a full business case or a fast track business case may be used. Only when the business case approval has been granted can a proposal move on to be considered for validation.

2.3 All business cases for courses that do not meet the fast track requirements must be submitted and approved by the December Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) at the latest. For January/February starts, business case forms must be submitted and approved by APC in May. After that point, no further validations will be added to the validation schedule, unless exceptionally approved by the Chair of APC.

2.4 Course teams should complete the relevant business case template (AQD001 or AQD016) and submit to AQD, before the required deadline. Where a course is being developed for delivery at a collaborative academic partner institution, the collaborative business case template should be completed (AQDC005). The template must include the financial analysis and evidence of engagement and discussion with the Head of School, relevant professional service Heads and employers where appropriate.

3. Stage 2 - The validation event 3.1 Once the business case is approved by APC, the relevant AQD business partner will

liaise with and confirm an event date and schedule with course teams. In the case of existing collaborative partners, the Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise with and confirm an event date and schedule with course teams. The event date will be confirmed by AQD within one week of APC approval. An indicative schedule can be found in document AQD003. For collaborative partners that will be also undergoing institutional approval, a validation date will be agreed with the Quality Manager

11 | P a g e

(Partnerships) in line with this process.

3.2 Heads of Subject are required to submit the validation paperwork to AQD by the agreed deadlines. The Head of Subject or nominated member of the Course Team must upload the validation paperwork by the agreed date to BOX

3.3 Validation and Periodic Review timelines can be found in the appendix at the end of this chapter.

4. Appointment of external advisors 4.1 Heads of Subject are required to nominate suitably experienced External Advisor(s)

to their AQD business partner. For collaborative academic courses, the Head of School will nominate the External Advisor to the Quality Manager (Partnerships). AQD will liaise with the External Advisor to confirm approval of the nomination, complete the Right to Work Check and engagement with the validation event. See External Advisor appointment form (AQD013) for further guidance.

5. Purpose of the validation panel 5.1 The validation panel will act as a critical friend to promote best practice, help to

enhance the new course and the student experience, and ensure the course meets threshold standards before the course commences. The panel will focus on;

• the design principles underpinning the course(s)

• the definition and appropriateness of standards in accordance with the level and title of the award

• anticipated demand for the course(s)

• the resources necessary to support the course(s)

• the nature of the learning opportunities offered by the course(s)

• the relationship between the course's curriculum and current research in the same area

• Articulation with QAA UK Quality Code (FHEQ, Subject Benchmark Statements), PSRB requirements – if appropriate

• Articulation with relevant internal frameworks

• Course specific regulations (where appropriate)

• The contents of the course and module specifications

• Learning, Teaching and Assessment (LTA) Strategy

• Employer/PSRB involvement in course design

• Student input into course design

• Future developments/enhancement strategy

12 | P a g e

6. Paperwork required for a standard validation

6.1 When completing the following paperwork, Course Teams should refer to the Standard Validation Timeline for deadlines and submit to Box:

• Validation overview document (AQD004) which includes the rationale, demand, LTA strategy, support and resource statement, employability details, details of PSRB accreditation if applicable.

• Evidence of employer and student engagement

• Course Specification (AQD006)

• Module Specifications (AQD007)

• Assessment map (AQD008)

• Staff CVs (AQD009)

• QAA Subject Benchmark mapping (AQD015)

• Inclusive Curriculum Checklists – Course and module Design / Delivery (AQD011a & AQD011b)

• Digital Literacy Checklist (AQD010)

7. Internal review 7.1 Before a course proceeds to validation, the Course Team must submit all validation

paperwork to an internal review panel. The panel, drawn from colleagues within AQD and the School, will scrutinise the paperwork before it is sent to the external advisors. This process allows for any issues to be considered internally before the formal validation panel meets.

7.2 The Internal Review panel will be formed of senior academics and AQD staff. Key members of the Course Team responsible for writing the paperwork must be present. It is expected the Internal Review would only last 1-2 hours. The AQD staff present will record a short summary of changes recommended to the paperwork before the course can proceed to full validation.

7.3 The Internal Review panel can agree for the course to proceed to full validation; it can recommend changes to the paperwork be completed before the date of the validation event or if serious concerns are raised, the panel can recommend that the Course Team delays the validation if significant changes are required.

8. Standard validation event agenda 8.1 The Standard Validation Event Agenda Template [AQD012] outlines an indicative

agenda for validation events, panel members and course team members involved and the suggested duration of each event.

13 | P a g e

9. Validation panel role descriptor 9.1 Typically, each validation or review panel should include the following personnel, and

their roles are to function as below. All types of validation and Periodic Review events must include input from External and Student Panel Members.

NB: for collaborative events, the Student Panel Member role will be discussed on a case-by-case basis with AQD.

Panel Member Role in the Standard Validation Process Chair • Guide the discussion during the event

• Assign areas of questions to panel members • Agree the event outcomes and provide a summary

conclusion • Ensure the course team are clear on any further

actions required as a condition of the course(s) being approved

• Work with the Officer to confirm the event outcomes report

• Receive revised validation paperwork and sign off once all conditions have been met by the course team

External Advisor (Academic)

• Provide an independent external view of the course(s)

• Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to course content, module content and assessments

• Contribute to the summarising of the debate External Advisor (Industry) • Provide an independent external view of the

course(s) • Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to

course content, module content and assessments • Contribute to the summarising of the debate

Internal (Academic staff member from a different School) NB: This may be an AQD representative in exceptional circumstances.

• Follow line of questioning agreed with Chair and plays an active part in discussions with the course team

• Ensure compliance of the courses being validated or reviewed with relevant internal and external academic regulations and frameworks

• Ensure quality assurance processes have been embedded in the course by the course team

14 | P a g e

Student • Provide a student’s view on the content of the course(s) being validated or reviewed

• Share relevant experience as a student within the institution

• Advise the panel and course team on issues such as resourcing, assessment methods and chosen mode(s) of delivery

• Explore issues of further study/employability connected to the course(s) being validated or reviewed

Officer • Arrange the event, liaises with course team(s), the panel and other members of professional staff

• Ensure the validation process is followed before, during and after the meeting

• Work closely with the Chair of the panel to make sure thorough questioning of the course team takes place and that the meeting(s) keep to the agenda and to time

• Ensure an accurate record of commendations, conditions and recommendations is made by the end of the meeting

• Produce an outcomes report and circulates to the course team within one week of the validation event taking place

• Produce a full report on the validation/review event and circulates to the course team within three weeks of the event taking place

• Work with the course team to ensure they submit revised course documentation by the due date, that this documentation and attached commentary on any changes is sent to the Chair and that the Chair

• Feeds back via the Officer in a timely fashion.

10. Standard validation outcomes 10.1 The validation panel are responsible for making a decision on behalf of Academic

Board on the approval of the course(s). The panel can commend the course team(s) for any areas of good practice which stand out in either the course documentation or as a result of the discussion on the day, and can also set conditions and recommendations of the validation Courses are usually approved for a period of 5 years.

15 | P a g e

10.2 Possible standard validation outcomes are as follows:

• Approved

• Approved with conditions (and recommendations)

• Not Approved / Referred back to the course team for further consideration.

10.3 The course team(s) must revise the course documentation in light of any conditions set by the panel and resubmit, along with a supporting summary explaining the changes, by the deadline agreed by the panel. The panel Chair must check the revised documentation and put in writing that the course can be signed off and officially validated before the course can be delivered to students.

10.4 The course team(s) must consider any recommendations the panel make and address those through course and module action plans. Resolution of any validation recommendations must be discussed at School-level committee and via normal continuous monitoring processes.

10.5 The course team(s) will also be provided with a specific list of minor changes required in course and module specifications which should also be completed by the deadline set and reviewed by the panel Chair.

10.6 Where the panel considers there to be serious concerns with quality or viability of a course or courses the panel will not recommend the course(s) for approval. At this stage the business case will need to be redeveloped and submitted to APC for approval.

11. The standard validation report 11.1 The Panel Officer is responsible for preparing the validation report, in agreement

with the Chair. The validation reports provide detail on the outcome of the meeting and any further work required by the course team. The Outcomes Report, detailing commendations, conditions and recommendations must be sent to the Course Team within one week of the validation event. The Full Report will be sent to the Course Team within three weeks of the validation event. Course Teams usually have six weeks to formally respond to conditions.

12. Next steps in the process 12.1 Once validated, the course enters into the standard University quality monitoring

processes. Course Teams will have the opportunity to make amendments to the course until the course is due to be periodically reviewed. The course will then be subject to a Periodic Review within five years of the date of final approval or three years for collaborative provision.

16 | P a g e

Standard validation event timeline

Time Action/Detail

-26-53 weeks Business Case development -26 weeks Business Case to be considered by School Learning, Teaching and Quality

Committee (LTQC) -20 weeks Business Case to be submitted to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) –

December at latest. For January starts, the Business Case must be submitted and approved by APC by May.

-8-20 weeks Course Team to develop the course(s) External Advisor nominations to be sent to AQD External Advisor Right to Work Check to be completed AQD to confirm External Advisor appointment(s)

-8 weeks Course team to send documentation to AQD -6 weeks Internal Panel Review Meeting – AQD Officer to inform the Course Team if

course documents are needed to be revised -5 weeks Course Team to update documentation and return to AQD -4 weeks Final set of documentation sent to the Panel and to External Advisors for

comment -2 week External Advisor reports shared with the Course Team Week 0 Event to take place before 30 April +1 week Outcomes Report distributed +3 weeks Full report distributed +6 weeks Course Team to formally respond to conditions and send updated course

documents to AQD +7 weeks Panel to review post-validation course documents and sign off the course +8 weeks AQD to inform relevant professional service departments of the validation

Approval of the Business Case

Course Development and Internal Review

Internal Review

ValidationEvent and

follow-up

17 | P a g e

Fast Track Validation Process 1. Introduction 1.1 All new course proposals that meet the fast track requirements are required to go

through the fast track validation process. Validation ensures that a newly developed course meets threshold standards, London Met’s strategies and ensures positive outcomes and the experience of students before the course can be delivered. It is a peer review process involving a panel of internal staff, external advisors, students, employers and representatives from Academic Quality and Development. For a course to qualify for the Fast Track validation process, it must be within an existing subject area and contain no more than two new modules. This does not include integrated Masters courses.

2. Stage 1 - Approval of fast track business cases 2.1 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) is responsible under delegated authority from

the Academic Board for the development and oversight of the University’s internal and collaborative portfolio. The Committee considers business cases for new course development against criteria such as market demand, unique selling points and contribution to the University’s mission.

2.2 The APC will also examine the nature and likelihood of any risks that may be posed by the proposed development of a new course. If the new proposal comprises a maximum of two new modules, with the majority already validated and running Course Teams should complete a Fast Track Business Case (AQD016) for APC approval.

2.3 For a fast track validation event to take place that academic year for September starts, a business case must go to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) and be approved by the January meeting at the latest. For January starts, the fast track business case must be approved by APC at the July meeting. After that point, no further validations will be added to the validation schedule, managed by AQD unless approved under exceptional circumstances by the APC Chair.

3. Stage 2 - The fast track validation event 3.1 Once the business case is approved by APC, the relevant AQD business partner or

Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise with and confirm an event date and schedule with course teams. The event date will be confirmed by AQD within one week of APC approval. An indicative schedule can be found in document AQD003b.

3.2 Course Leaders are required to submit the validation paperwork to AQD by the agreed deadlines. The Course Leader or nominated member of the Course Team must upload the validation paperwork by the agreed date to BOX.

3.3 Validation and Periodic Review timelines can be found in the appendix at the end of

18 | P a g e

this chapter.

4. Appointment of external panel members 4.1 Heads of Subject are required to nominate suitably experienced External Panel

Members to their AQD business partner. AQD will liaise with the External Panel Member to confirm approval, complete the Right to Work Check and engagement with the validation event. Please see the External Advisor Appointment Form for further guidance (AQD013).

5. Purpose of the fast track validation panel 5.1 The validation panel will act as a critical friend to promote best practice and help to

enhance the new course and the student experience, ensuring the course meets threshold standards before the course commences. The panel will focus on;

• the design principles underpinning the course(s) • the definition and appropriateness of standards in accordance with the level and

title of the award

• anticipated demand for the course(s) • the resources necessary to support the course(s) • the nature of the learning opportunities offered by the course(s) • the relationship between the course's curriculum and current research in the

same area

• Articulation with QAA UK Quality Code (FHEQ, Subject Benchmark Statements), PSRB requirements – if appropriate

• Articulation with relevant internal frameworks • Course specific regulations (where appropriate) • The contents of the course and module specifications • Learning, Teaching and Assessment (LTA) Strategy • Employer/PSRB involvement in course design • Student input into course design

6. Paperwork required for a fast track validation 6.1 Course Teams should refer to the Fast Track Validation Timeline for deadlines and

submit to Box:

• Fast Track Validation overview document (AQD005) which includes the rationale, demand, LTA strategy, support and resource statement, employability details,

19 | P a g e

details of PSRB accreditation if applicable,

• Evidence of employer and student engagement • Course Specification (AQD006) • All new module specifications (AQD007) • Assessment map (AQD008) • Staff CVs for new staff only (AQD009) • QAA mapping (AQD015)

7. Indicative fast track validation agenda 7.1 The Fast Track Validation Event Agenda Template (AQD012b) outlines an indicative

agenda for fast track validation events, panel members and course team members involved and the suggested duration of each event.

8. Validation panel role descriptor 8.1 Typically, each validation or review panel should include the following personnel, and

their roles are to function as below. All types of validation and Periodic Review events must include input from External and Student Panel Members.

NB: For collaborative events, the role of the Student Panel Members will be confirm on a case by case basis by AQD.

Panel Member Role in the Fast Track Validation Process

Chair • Guide the discussion during the event • Assign areas of questions to panel members • Agree the event outcomes and provide a summary

conclusion • Ensure the course team are clear on any further

actions required as a condition of the course(s) being approved

• Work with the Officer to confirm the event outcomes report

• Receive revised validation paperwork and sign off once all conditions have been met by the course

• team

External Panel Member

• Provide an independent external view of the course(s)

20 | P a g e

(Academic) Submits comments for Fast Track but does not attend the event

• Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to course content, module content and assessments

External Panel Member (Industry) Submits comments for Fast Track but does not attend the event

• Provide an independent external view of the course(s)

• Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to course content, module content and assessments

Academic Quality and Development Internal Representative

• Follow line of questioning agreed with Chair and plays an active part in discussions with the course team

• Ensure compliance of the courses being validated with relevant internal and external academic regulations and frameworks

• Ensure quality assurance processes have been embedded in the course by the course team

Student • Provide a student’s view on the content of the course(s) being validated

• Share relevant experience as a student within the institution

• Advise the panel and course team on issues such as resourcing, assessment methods and chosen mode(s) of delivery

• Explore issues of further study/employability connected to the course(s) being validated

Officer • Arrange the event, liaises with course team(s), the panel and other members of professional staff

• Ensure the validation process is followed before, during and after the meeting

• Work closely with the Chair of the panel to make sure thorough questioning of the course team takes place and that the meeting(s) keep to the agenda and to time

• Ensure an accurate record of commendations, conditions and recommendations is made by the end of the meeting

• Produce an outcomes report and circulates to the

21 | P a g e

course team within one week of the validation event taking place

• Work with the course team to ensure they submit revised course documentation by the due date, that this documentation and attached commentary on any changes is sent to the Chair and that the Chair feeds back via the Officer in a timely fashion.

9. Fast track validation outcomes 9.1 The Fast Track validation panel may choose to commend the course team for any

areas of good practice which stand out in either the course documentation or as a result of the discussion on the day.

9.2 Possible fast track validation outcomes are as follows:

• Approved

• Approved with conditions (and recommendations)

• Not Approved

• Referred back to the course team for further consideration.

9.3 The course team must revise the course documentation in light of any conditions set by the panel and resubmit, along with a supporting summary explaining the changes, by a deadline agreed by the panel. The panel Chair must check the revised documentation and put in writing that the course can be signed off and officially validated before the course can be delivered to students.

9.4 The course team must consider any recommendations the panel make and address those through action plans arising through the course action plan. Resolution of any validation recommendations must be discussed at School-level committee and via normal continuous monitoring processes.

9.5 The course team will also be provided with a specific list of minor changes required in course and module specifications which should also be completed by the deadline set and reviewed by the panel Chair.

10. The fast track validation report 10.1 The Officer is responsible for preparing the validation reports, in agreement with the

Chair. For the Fast Track process, only the Outcomes Report is provided after the meeting.

22 | P a g e

10.2 The Outcomes Report, detailing commendations, conditions and recommendations must be sent to the Course Team within one week of the validation event. Course Teams usually have two weeks to formally respond to conditions.

11. Next steps in the process 11.1 Once validated, the course enters into the standard University quality monitoring

processes. Course Teams will have the opportunity to make amendments to the course until the course is due to be periodically reviewed. The course will then be subject to a Periodic Review within five years of the date of final approval.

23 | P a g e

Fast track validation event timeline

Time Action/Detail -20 weeks Fast Track Business Case Development -10-20 weeks

Fast Track Business Case to be considered by School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC)

-8 weeks Business Case to be submitted to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) – December at latest. For January starts, the Business Case must be submitted and approved by APC by May.

-6-8 weeks Course Team to develop the course(s) -4 weeks Course team to send documentation to AQD and to External Panel

Member to provide commentary -2 weeks Documentation sent to the Panel -1 week Course Teams to formally respond to External Panel Member

commentary Week 0 Desk based event to take place before 30 April +1 week Outcomes Report distributed +2 weeks Course Team to formally respond to conditions and send updated

course documents to AQD +3 weeks Panel to review post-validation course documents and sign off the

course +4 weeks AQD to inform relevant professional service departments of the

validation

Approval of the Business Case

Course Development

Fast Track Validation

Event and

follow-up

24 | P a g e

Continuous Monitoring Policy 1. Internal and external reference points

1.1 The London Met policy and process for Continuous Monitoring of taught course provision have been developed in consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, and the QAA Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation published in November 2018. Course Teams should consult and consider both internal (Academic Regulations, General Student Regulations) and external reference points.

2. Continuous monitoring

2.1 London Met requires that all its taught provision, including that delivered at Collaborative Academic Partners, is subject to regular and thorough monitoring and review to ensure a continued high-quality student experience, the maintenance and development of academic standards and that students are supported to achieve positive student outcomes. Continuous Monitoring procedures are implemented at module, course, cluster, partner, school and institutional levels, and performance is assessed in relation to agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). AQD will support colleagues in the Schools to deliver all their required Continuous Monitoring outputs according to the agreed processes.

2.2 Continuous Monitoring is a vital component within quality assurance and enhancement. Full and timely engagement with the process is crucial to reflect on performance at all levels and to drive improvements and further enhancement for future years. It should provide colleagues with time to reflect and analyse, and ultimately all staff and students benefit from its outcomes.

2.3 Continuous Monitoring will be informed by timely consideration of qualitative and quantitative evidence that will support both the development and completion of focused module and course-specific actions, through identification of themes, issues or good practice at cluster, partner, school and institutional level. It will enable the identification of initiatives that have a positive impact on student outcomes and the student experience.

2.4 Schools will monitor the courses delivered by their Collaborative Academic Partners, and a review of this will feed into School and University level reporting.

2.5 Continuous Monitoring will feed into the effective Periodic Review of London Met courses. It will also enable London Met staff to develop an understanding of the institutional outcomes data considered in external exercises such as the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF).

2.6 Colleagues in all Schools should receive training on how to access and use the data provided in Business Objects reports, to support their engagement with the

25 | P a g e

Continuous Monitoring process, and ensure this data feeds into and informs all aspects of the Continuous Monitoring process.

2.7 Students will be informed of the outputs of Continuous Monitoring via relevant committees and course pages on the VLE.

3. Levels of reporting

Module oversight

3.1 Monitoring of module performance will be recorded on an ongoing basis on the Module Action Plan. Actions will be detailed in response to module level data and other feedback and taken forward to conclusion at the earliest opportunity. The Module Action Plan will be a ‘live’ document, and colleagues are expected to engage with action plans throughout the academic year, completing, updating and refreshing the content as the academic year progresses. This allows a fuller picture to emerge and means Continuous Monitoring can be completed in a timely fashion by the final deadline in November.

3.2 The annual Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM) may require a Module Enhancement Plan (MEP) to be produced where performance on the module has fallen below any institutionally agreed benchmarks.

Course oversight

3.3 Monitoring of course performance will be through the Performance Enhancement Meetings. Actions will be agreed in response to module and course level data and other feedback and taken forward to conclusion at the earliest opportunity. Where course performance has fallen below the benchmark, a Course Enhancement Plan (CEP) will need to be completed.

Cluster oversight

3.4 Cluster level review will be undertaken for reporting at cluster level. The Clusters will reflect reporting units for external monitoring exercises, such as the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF). A Cluster Annual Narrative report (CAN) will be produced considering the relevant Module and Course Action Plans, course level data, performance against three years of relevant metrics, and minutes of the relevant Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM).

Partnership / School oversight

3.5 In addition to module action plans produced by the partner institution, the School will complete a School Continuous Monitoring Statement (Collaborative Provision) (SCMS). This should be completed by the Head of School or nominee.

3.6 When provision with a Collaborative Academic Partner is in the ‘teach-out’ phase, revised Continuous Monitoring arrangements may be applied. These will be agreed

26 | P a g e

between AQD, the School and the partner and ensure that the university fulfils its obligations for quality assurance of the provision.

3.7 Each School will also produce an annual summary overview report of all in-house Continuous Monitoring outputs for consideration at a meeting of the LTQ Committee that is focused on Continuous Monitoring.

Institutional oversight

3.8 AQD will produce an annual report for the LTQ Committee on key themes, good practice and issues arising from Continuous Monitoring.

4. Timelines

All Continuous Monitoring timelines will be published in the Annual Quality Cycle, prior to the end of the previous academic year. It is crucial that deadlines for completion of each section of the Continuous Monitoring process are adhered to.

27 | P a g e

Continuous Monitoring Process 1. Outline

1.1 The Continuous Monitoring process at London Met supports the effective implementation of the Continuous Monitoring policy across all taught provision, including Collaborative Provision. It is designed to deliver enhancements at a variety of levels: module, course, subject, partnership, School and Institution.

1.2 The Continuous Monitoring process will enable timely reflection on, and response to, a variety of qualitative and quantitative data, including the following:

• Student feedback: Module and Course Surveys, Course Committees, NSS

feedback, and student representatives, • Summative performance data; module completion rate, pass rate, average

mark and grade distribution; course progression and achievement rates, • External examiner feedback: informal discussions, feedback to SSBs, annual

report, • Employer feedback (where appropriate).

It will also enable identification of the impact that different interventions have had.

2. Timelines 2.1 The dates of Continuous Monitoring deadlines will be published by AQD in the

Annual Quality Cycle, prior to the end of the previous academic year. Indicative checkpoints are as detailed below:

Item Cycle Checkpoint Module monitoring – Module action plan (to include data from SLMF, SLCF, Course Committees, first sits, resits, admissions and registration) Module monitoring – Module enhancement plan

Ongoing If necessary

End October End December

Course Monitoring – action plan Course monitoring – Course enhancement plan

Ongoing If necessary

End October End December

Performance Enhancement Meeting (London Met Provision) Annual Mid-November

Annual Quality Monitoring Group Meeting and Performance Enhancement Meeting (Collaborative Provision)

Annual Mid-November

28 | P a g e

Cluster Annual Narrative Annual End December School Continuous Monitoring Statement (London Met Provision) Annual End January

School Continuous Monitoring Statement (Collaborative Provision) Annual End January

Institutional Continuous Monitoring Report Annual End February

3. Module monitoring

3.1 Module oversight is the responsibility of the Module Leader who should maintain the Module Action Plan (MAP) (AQD017) as a live account of enhancement actions taken. In doing so the Module Leader should record the evidence and reflection that has resulted in the action, and detail responsibility for the action – this may be the Module Leader themselves or may be delegated or escalated. Module Action Plans should be completed for all London Met modules, including Collaborative Provision.

3.2 Evidence to be considered within the MAP will include module level assessment data, module surveys, external examiner comments made at the Subject Standards Board (SSB) and in the annual report, and all forms of student feedback. Module data is available in the Assessment Dashboard in Business Objects.

3.3 The MAP should be updated in a timely fashion to include a considered response to new items of evidence, thus enabling actions to be instigated and completed as soon as possible. AQD will remind Module Leaders of the MAP requirements in accordance with the Continuous Monitoring schedule (reflecting the availability of new evidence) and require that MAPs are updated as necessary. See section 11 for checkpoints.

3.4 At each annual checkpoint the MAP should be uploaded by the Module Leader into a Box folder made available by AQD. MAPs must be available at this point for consideration at the PEM. Where performance has fallen below institutionally agreed benchmarks the PEM may require a Module Enhancement Plan (MEP) to be produced (AQD018). If a MEP is required, it will be considered at the School Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ) Committee before being sent to the University LTQ Committee (or Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee for collaborative courses).

3.4 Where module modification is identified as the appropriate action in response to some data, the Module Leader should follow the module modification process detailed at Chapter 7. The Annual Quality Cycle details the key deadlines for the modification process.

3.5 Modules taught at Collaborative Academic Partner institutions should be reviewed by the Module Leader at the partner in the same way as those run on-campus. The

29 | P a g e

London Met Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) should work with the partner to support this activity.

3.6 AQD will work with the Schools to maintain a current list of Module Leaders and Academic Liaison Tutors.

4. Course monitoring

4.1 Course oversight is the responsibility of the Course Leader who should maintain the Course Action Plan (CAP) (AQD019) as a live account of enhancement actions taken. In doing so, the Course Leader should record the evidence and reflection that has resulted in the action and detail responsibility for the action – this may be the Course Leader themselves or may be delegated or escalated.

4.2 Evidence to be considered will include MAPs, course level data, course surveys, course committee minutes, external examiner comments, PSRB reports (where appropriate), Periodic Review reports (where appropriate) and all forms of student feedback. Course data are available in the Course Dashboard and Continuous Monitoring Dashboard (three years of data) in Business Objects.

4.3 The CAP should be updated in a timely fashion to include a considered response to new items of evidence, thus enabling actions to be instigated and completed as soon as possible. AQD will remind Course Leaders of the CAP requirements in accordance with the Continuous Monitoring Schedule (reflecting the availability of new evidence), and require that CAPs are updated as necessary.

4.4 At each annual checkpoint the CAP should be uploaded by the Course Leader into a Box folder made available by AQD. Where performance has fallen below institutionally agreed benchmarks the PEM may require a Course Enhancement Plan (CEP) (AQD020) to be produced. If a CEP is required, it will be considered at the School Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ) Committee before being sent to the University LTQ Committee (or Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee for collaborative courses).

4.5 Where course modification is identified as the appropriate action in response to some data, the Course Leader should follow the module modification process detailed at Chapter 7. The Annual Quality Cycle details the key deadlines for the modification process.

4.6 CAPs will be received at each Course Committee meeting and should be made available as an element in Periodic Review documentation.

4.7 Courses taught at Collaborative Academic Partner institutions should be reviewed by the Course Leader at the partner in the same way as those run on-campus, using local data sources rather than Business Objects if necessary. The London Met Academic Liaison Tutor may work with the partner to support this activity.

30 | P a g e

4.8 AQD will work with the Schools to maintain a current list of Course Leaders and Academic Liaison Tutors.

5. Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMs) 5.1 Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMs) that relate to a Subject Standards

Board (SSB) area will be convened by AQD each November to consider the overall module and course health and performance in the previous academic year. MAPs and CAPS will be put forward by AQD for consideration at the PEMs. Where the PEMs consider that performance is below agreed benchmark KPIs, it will require Module Enhancement Plans (AQD018) and Course Enhancement Plans (AQD020) to be delivered. AQD will support Schools in developing these and implementation will be overseen by School LTQs and reported to Course Committees.

5.2 The University is responsible for organising and chairing the PEM for all Collaborative Academic Partnerships. The PEM will consider the overall module and course health and performance in the previous academic year.

5.3 The PEM membership and Terms of Reference is as follows:

The PEMs, as the primary face-to-face meeting of the year concerning performance enhancement, is formally minuted and actions recorded. The PEM and the equivalent Subject Standard Board SSB normally share a common membership and Chair. PEMs are scheduled by AQD. The PEM Chair should agree the agenda with the PEM officer (usually a member of staff from Academic Business Administration) prior to the meeting. The functions of PEM are:

• to provide Schools with the opportunity to assess the academic health of modules and courses, monitor performance of students and identify ways of enhancing the course or module,

• to review module and course performance, particularly in respect of modules and courses that do not meet institutionally agreed benchmarks,

• to require the production of module and course enhancement plans where performance is below institutionally agreed benchmarks.

PEM Membership

• Chair: same as Subject Standards Board • Vice-chair: same as Subject Standards Board • Head of School • External Examiner: subject standard board external examiners (Attendance

not obligatory – obligatory attendance required at SSB) • AQD Representative • Officer (from ABA) • Academic Liaison Tutor(s)

31 | P a g e

• Collaborative Partner’s Management staff • Collaborative Partner’s Course Leader(s) • Collaborative Partner’s Module Leader(s)

6. Cluster monitoring (London Met provision only)

6.1 All courses will be grouped into course clusters agreed between the relevant School and AQD. Each cluster will have an agreed Cluster Convenor who is responsible for drafting a Cluster Annual Narrative (CAN) (AQD021), taking into account the relevant Course Action Plans and minutes of the relevant Performance Enhancement Meeting/s. The CAN will also consider the development of the cluster subject area as a whole throughout that period and the progress that is being made against key metrics, using the cluster data across three years that is available in the Continuous Monitoring report in Business Objects.

6.2 CANs should be uploaded by the relevant Convenor into a Box folder made available by AQD in accordance with the annual timetable. A sub-committee of the LTQ Committee will review CANs and provide feedback to the relevant Heads of School and Cluster Convenors.

6.3 AQD will work with the Schools to maintain a current list of Cluster Convenors.

6.4 Cluster monitoring is not required for Collaborative Provision.

7. Partnership monitoring

7.1 In addition to the completion of module and course level monitoring documentation e.g. module action plan; each School at the University will be required to complete a School Continuous Monitoring Statement - Collaborative (SCMSC) (AQDC026).

7.2 In each School, The Head of School or a nominee will complete the School Continuous Monitoring Statement – Collaborative (SCMSC) (AQDC026) for each Collaborative Academic Partnership. Academic Liaison Tutors can also support with the completion of the document.

7.3 The School Continuous Monitoring Statement - Collaborative will consider the operation of the partnership itself throughout that period and the progress that is being made against key metrics.

7.3 The School Continuous Monitoring Statement - Collaborative should be uploaded into a Box folder made available by AQD in accordance with the annual timetable. The Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-committee will review School Continuous Monitoring Statements for Collaborative Provision and provide feedback to the relevant Heads of School(s).

32 | P a g e

7.4 When provision with a Collaborative Academic Partner is in the ‘teach-out’ phase, revised Continuous Monitoring arrangements may be applied. These will be agreed between AQD, the School and the partner and ensure that the university fulfils its obligations for quality assurance of the provision.

7.5 An Annual Quality Monitoring Group (AQMG) meeting will be held between the University and each Collaborative Academic Partner, to consider the operation of the partnership and the progress and development of each course. School Continuous Monitoring Statement documents may be reviewed at this meeting.

7.6 The AQMG should consider all key performance data including data around applications and enrolment, student retention and progression, student complaints and appeals as well as continuous monitoring reporting. The AQMG should also receive validation reports, student engagement and feedback strategies and maintain an overview of arrangements for external examining and assessment boards.

7.7 AQMG Membership:

• Chair – Director of Academic Development and Quality Assurance or Head of Academic Quality Assurance

• Secretary – Quality Manager (Partnerships) or AQD Officer/Administrator • Head of School or nominee • Academic Liaison Tutor(s) • Collaborative Partner’s Management staff • Collaborative Partner’s Course Leader(s) • Collaborative Partner’s Quality Assurance staff • Other (academic) staff as determined by the Collaborative Partner

8. School level oversight

8.1 AQD will report regularly to the School LTQ Committees with details of compliance with the Continuous Monitoring schedule. School LTQ Committees may receive any of the Continuous Monitoring reports for additional consideration and support wider dissemination of issues or actions arising from these. School Committees will oversee implementation of Module and Course Enhancement Plans.

8.2 The Head of School will produce a School Continuous Monitoring (SCMS) Statement (AQD022) for the University LTQ Committee (January annually). This will be a short summary evaluation of the health of the provision in the School, including Collaborative Provision, identifying the impact of initiatives, issues and key actions arising and good practice highlighted in all the School’s monitoring reporting. This will cover both on-campus and Collaborative Provision.

33 | P a g e

9. Institutional oversight

9.1 AQD will produce an institutional Continuous Monitoring report for the LTQ Committee to identify institutional-wide issues and good practice, and to ensure that there is ongoing review of the Continuous Monitoring process.

10. Support

10.1 AQD will support School staff through the delivery of training on all aspects of Continuous Monitoring, together with ongoing advice and guidance.

10.2 All academic colleagues engaged in Continuous Monitoring reporting must complete Business Objects training. AQD will liaise with an agreed member of staff in each School who will be responsible for ensuring colleagues receive appropriate Business Objects support and who will be the main point of contact on these issues between the School and AQD.

11. Continuous monitoring checkpoints/deadlines

Type of Modification Modification Deadline

Non-material Modifications SLTQ for Feb starts

November (Autumn Term, Week 8)

Material Modifications SLTQ for September starts

December

Course title change deadline March (Spring Term, Week 22)

Course suspension/closure March (Spring Term, Week 23)

Material Modifications LTQC for January starts

April (Spring Term, Week 26)

34 | P a g e

Module Monitoring - Module Action Plan

Module Leaders have the responsibility of maintaining MAPS as a live account of actions taken.

Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMS)

Convened by AQD

Cluster Monitoring

Each cluster will have a Cluster Convenor responsible for the Cluster Annual Narrative report (CAN).

Course Monitoring – Course Action

Course Leaders have the responsibility of maintaining CAPS as a live account of actions taken.

Module

Oversight

Course

Oversight

School Continuous Monitoring Statement (SCMS)

Heads of School to provide this overview

Institutional Continuous Monitoring Statement (ICMS)

Responsibility of AQD to produce

Produced for LTQ Committee

Produced for LTQ Committee

School

Oversight

Institutional

Oversight

‘Special Measures’ (if required):

Module Enhancement Plan / Course Enhancement Plan (MEP/CEP) / PEM Minutes

Continuous Monitoring ‘Live’ Process Summary Oversight

Module/

Course

Oversight

Cluster

Oversight

School LTQ & LTQ Committee

Checkpoint Deadline

End of October

End of October

November

End of December

End of December

End of January

End of February

35 | P a g e

Collaborative Continuous Monitoring ‘Live’ Process Summary Oversight

Annual Quality Monitoring Group (AQMG)

University meets with each Partner / CCMS and PCMs

Institutional

Oversight

School Continuous Monitoring Statement (SCMSC)

Heads of School to provide this overview report

Produced for LTQ Committee

School

Oversight

Module Monitoring - Module Action Plan

Module Leaders have the responsibility of maintaining MAPS as a live account of actions

Module

Oversight

Course

Oversight

Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMS)

Convened by AQD

Module/

Course

Oversight

‘Special Measures’ (if required):

Module Enhancement Plan / Course Enhancement Plan (MEP/CEP) / PEM Minutes

Produced for LTQ Committee

Institutional Continuous Monitoring Statement (ICMS)

Responsibility of AQD to produce

Institutional

Oversight

School LTQ & Collaborative Taught

Provision Sub-Committee

Checkpoint Deadline

End of October

End of October

Mid-November

End of December

Mid-November

End of January

End of January

Course Monitoring – Course Action Plan

Course Leaders have the responsibility of maintaining CAPS as a live account of actions taken.

36 | P a g e

Periodic Review Policy 1. Internal and external reference points 1.1 The London Met policy and process for Periodic Review have been developed in

consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, the QAA Advice and Guidance on Course Development and Design and the QAA Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation published in November 2018.

1.2 Course teams should consult and consider internal (Academic Regulations, General Student Regulations) and external reference points in the Periodic Review of courses including Subject Benchmark Statements, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England (FHEQ), Apprenticeship Standards and any Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements.

2. Periodic review

2.1 London Met aims to ensure that courses that continue to meet appropriate threshold standards, provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and provide students with a high quality experience and positive outcomes. To ensure courses continue to meet these standards, all courses are subject to Periodic Review, including those at collaborative partners. AQD appoints Periodic Review panels to consider continuous approval on its behalf.

2.2 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has delegated responsibility on behalf of the Academic Board for the continuous approval of courses at London Met and its collaborative partners.

2.3 Periodic Reviews build on the continuous monitoring process and are designed to critically evaluate the course over the validation cycle, considering areas for development, enhancement and good practice to be shared at London Met. In the final year of the validation cycle a Periodic Review event will take place. This event will also be triggered if courses exceed material modifications of 30% of core modules, or 20% of core modules and another material change such as a change of title.

2.3 As part of the Periodic Review event course teams can review and modify the course based on the critical evaluation and feedback from students, employers, and PSRBs. Courses can also be updated to ensure that threshold standards are maintained. At this stage the Periodic Review panel will recommend for APC approval for a further 5 academic years.

2.4 Periodic Review events will be comprised of internal and external panel members including academic and industry experts and Student Panel Members.

2.5 The panels will confirm that threshold standards continue to be met for the course(s) to be reapproved. Periodic Review events will also take into consideration any

37 | P a g e

requirements from PSRBs where applicable.

3. Course suspension or closure

3.3 An unsatisfactory Periodic Review may result in either suspension or closure of a course, or a recommendation for significant changes and reapproval. Where significant changes are recommended, the course will be suspended until the course is reapproved. If the Course Teams are not able to address these changes within the agreed deadlines, the course closure process outlined in sections 8 and 9 of the Quality Manual will be followed and the Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) will be notified.

3.4 For courses at collaborative partners, the termination process as outlined in section 11 of the Quality Manual may also apply.

38 | P a g e

Periodic Review Process 1. Periodic review 1.1 Periodic Review is the process that provides the University with an opportunity to

critically reflect on the performance of a course or subject area, make the case for its continuation, assess its academic health and currency, and, if necessary to propose and validate changes. In effect, Periodic Review is a mechanism for both reviewing and reapproving the course.

1.2 Unlike Continuous Monitoring, Periodic Review considers a changing environment, longitudinal data, market trends and current research. Periodic Reviews encompass a more holistic and fundamental review than Continuous Monitoring, drawing on the outcomes of Course and Module Action Plans and Performance Enhancement Meetings, and the outcomes of student feedback mechanisms such as course committees and surveys.

2. Stage 1 - setting a date for the periodic review event 2.1 AQD will be responsible for managing the schedule of Periodic Review events for

both internal and collaborative academic partner institutions. Dates for Periodic Review events will usually be set by AQD in spring annually. AQD will provide support throughout the Periodic Review process.

3. Appointment of external advisors 3.1 Heads of Subject are responsible for nominating suitably experienced External

Advisor(s) to AQD using the External Advisor Appointment Form (AQD013). In the case of collaborative academic partner institutions, the Head of School will nominate the External Advisor. AQD will confirm the appointment and liaise with External Advisors in completing the Right to Work process and engagement with the event.

4. Paperwork required for a periodic review 4.1 Course Teams will need to complete the following paperwork and submit to Box. The

Course Team must complete a Self-Evaluation Document (SED) (AQD023 or AQDC028 for collaborative partners) and submit to AQD for review by the agreed deadline. In addition to the SED, the paperwork submitted to Box must include:

• Course committee minutes (last 3 years),

• Student Survey Action Plans (last 3 years),

• Summary of modifications for entire validation period,

• Evidence of student and employer engagement,

• Course and Module Action Plans for the last 3 years,

39 | P a g e

• Updated course and module specifications (showing track changes),

• Staff CVs (AQD009)

• Learning, teaching and assessment strategy,

• Inclusive Curriculum Checklists – Course and module Design /Delivery (AQD011a & AQD011b),

• Digital Literacy Checklist (AQD010),

• Assessment map (AQD008),

• External Examiner Reports for the last 3 years.

5. Internal review 5.1 As part of the Periodic Review process, the Course Team must submit all paperwork

to an internal review panel. The panel, drawn from colleagues from AQD and within the School, will scrutinise the paperwork before proceeding to the Periodic Review event. This process allows for any issues to be considered internally before the formal review panel meets.

5.2 The Internal Review panel will be formed of senior academics and AQD staff. Key members of the Course Team responsible for writing the paperwork must be present. It is expected the Internal Review would only last 1-2 hours.

5.3 The Internal Review panel can agree for the course to proceed to Periodic Review; it can recommend changes to the paperwork be completed before the date of the event or if serious concerns are raised, the panel can recommend that the Course Team delays the periodic review if significant changes are required. The AQD staff present will record a short summary of changes recommended to the paperwork before the course can proceed to the Periodic Review event.

6. Indicative periodic review event agenda 6.1 The Periodic Review Event Agenda Template (AQD025) outlines an indicative agenda

for Periodic Review events, panel members and course team members involved and the suggested duration of each event.

7. Periodic review panel role descriptor 7.1 Typically, each Periodic Review panel should include the following personnel, and

their roles are to function as below:

NB: for Periodic Reviews at collaborative partners, the Student Panel Member role will be agreed on a case by case basis with AQD.

40 | P a g e

Panel Member Role in the Periodic Review Process Chair • Guide the discussion during the event

• Assign areas of questions to panel members • Agree the event outcomes and provide a summary

conclusion • Ensures the course team are clear on any further

actions required as a condition of the course(s) being approved

• Work with the Officer to confirm the event outcomes report

• Receive revised paperwork and sign off once all conditions have been met by the course team

External Advisor (Academic)

• Provide an independent external view of the course(s)

• Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to course content, module content and assessments

• Contribute to the summarising of the debate External Advisor (Industry) • Provide an independent external view of the

course(s) • Advise the panel on any necessary revisions to

course content, module content and assessments • Contribute to the summarising of the debate

Internal (Academic staff member from a different School) NB: This may be an AQD representative in exceptional circumstances.

• Follows line of questioning agreed with Chair and plays an active part in discussions with the course team

• Ensures compliance of the courses being reviewed with relevant internal and external academic regulations and frameworks

• Ensures quality assurance processes have been embedded in the course by the course team

Student Panel Member • Provides a student’s view on the content of the course(s) being reviewed

• Shares relevant experience as a student within the institution

• Advise the panel and course team on issues such as resourcing, assessment methods and chosen

41 | P a g e

mode(s) of delivery • Explores issues of further study/employability

connected to the course(s) being • reviewed

Officer • Arranges the event, liaises with course team(s), the panel and other members of professional staff

• Ensures the Periodic Review process is followed before, during and after the meeting

• Works closely with the Chair of the panel to make sure thorough questioning of the course team takes place and that the meeting(s) keep to the agenda and to time

• Ensures an accurate record of commendations, conditions and recommendations is made by the end of the meeting

• Produces an outcomes report and circulates to the course team within one week of the event taking place

• Produces a full report on the review event and circulates to the course team within three weeks of the event taking place

• Works with the course team to ensure they submit revised course documentation by the due date, that this documentation and attached commentary on any changes is sent to the Chair and that the Chair feeds back via the Officer in a timely fashion.

42 | P a g e

8. Periodic review outcomes

8.1 The panel may choose to commend the course team for any areas of good practice which stand out in either the course documentation or because of the discussion on the day.

Possible Periodic Review outcomes are as follows:

• Approved

• Approved with conditions (and recommendations)

• Not Approved / Referred back to the course team for further consideration.

8.2 The Course Team must revise the course documentation considering any conditions set by the panel and resubmit, along with a supporting summary in the Periodic Review Full Report explaining the changes, by a deadline agreed by the panel. The panel Chair must check the revised documentation and put in writing that the course can be signed off and confirmed as reapproved on behalf of Academic Board.

8.3 The Course Team must consider any recommendations the panel make and address those through action plans arising through the Continuous Monitoring process. Resolution of any review recommendations must be discussed at School-level committees and via the Continuous Monitoring process.

8.4 The Course Team will also be provided with a specific list of minor changes required in course and module specifications which should also be completed by the deadline set and reviewed by the panel Chair.

8.5 Periodic Review panels do not have the authority to delete or change course titles.

8.6 Following a successful Periodic Review, courses are reapproved for a period of five years.

9. The periodic review reports

9.1 The Panel Officer is responsible for preparing the Periodic Review Reports, in agreement with the Chair. The reports provide detail on the outcome of the meeting and any further work required by the Course Team. The Outcomes Report, detailing commendations, conditions and recommendations must be sent to the Course Team within one week of the Periodic Review event. The Full Report will be sent to the Course Team within three weeks of the event. Course Teams usually have six weeks to formally respond to conditions.

43 | P a g e

Periodic review event timeline Time Action/Detail Spring AQD to confirm the list of courses to be going through Periodic Review in

the following academic year -10-20 weeks

Preparation of Self-Evaluation Document by Course Team(s)

-10 weeks External Advisor nominations to be sent to AQD External Advisor Right to Work Check to be completed AQD to confirm External Advisor appointment(s)

-8 weeks Course team to send documentation to AQD -6 weeks Internal Panel Review Meeting – AQD Officer to inform the Course Team if

course documents are needed to be revised -5 weeks Course Team to update documentation and return to AQD -4 weeks Documentation sent to the Panel and to External Advisors for comment -2 week External Advisor reports shared with the Course Team Week 0 Event to take place by 31 December +1 week Outcomes Report distributed +3 weeks Full report distributed +6 weeks Course Team(s) to formally respond to conditions and send updated course

documents to AQD +7 weeks Panel to review post-periodic review course documents and sign off the

course +8 weeks AQD to inform relevant professional service departments of the periodic

review

Periodic Review date setting

Preparation of Self -Evaluation Document

Updating Course Documents

Internal Review

Periodic Review Event and

follow-up

44 | P a g e

External Examiner Policy 1. Internal and external reference points

1.1. The London Met policy and process for external examining have been developed in consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, and the QAA Advice and Guidance on External Expertise published in November 2018 and the University’s Academic Regulations.

2. External examining at London Met

2.1. This policy refers to External Examiner processes related to undergraduate and postgraduate taught provision at London Met and its collaborative partners. External Examiners for MPhil and PhD provision are not within the remit of this policy.

2.2. London Met aims to ensure that its provision meets threshold standards and that the quality of provision and the student experience is continuously reviewed, therefore, External Examiners are a key element in this therefore the University requires that an external examiner is appointed for every course that leads to an award of the University. London Met External Examiners are appointed and managed by Academic Quality and Development on behalf of the Vice Chancellor and the Academic Board.

2.3. Course teams must ensure that London Met provision has an appropriate External Examiner appointed. AQD will support the course teams to ensure that External Examiners are appointed, inducted, and provided with all necessary information to fulfil their roles. Course teams should engage with External Examiners in a collegial way to support the maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards of London Met provision.

2.4. External Examiners are key in supporting London Met in maintaining the academic standards of its provision, and do this by;

• Providing feedback to London Met on maintaining the threshold of academic standards set for its awards in accordance with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England (FHEQ) and relevant QAA Subject Benchmark Statements.

• Providing feedback on the London Met assessment policy and process including measures to ensure that assessment and achievement is rigorous and fair against the course and module learning outcomes and is in line with London Met regulations.

• Ensuring that London Met’s academic standards and achievements are comparable with those of other UK degree-awarding bodies.

• Acting as a critical friend and provide comments and recommendations on; o Good practice, innovation in relation to learning, teaching and assessment,

45 | P a g e

o Areas of enhancement of learning, teaching, assessment, and opportunities available to students.

o Areas that could be improved to ensure that academic standards are maintained and enhanced.

2.5. External examiners, who shall not be members of staff of the University, shall be

appointed as Subject Standards Examiners to modules, or as Awards Examiners to sit on the University Awards Board.

2.6. External Examiners are expected to attend London Met to exercise their roles and responsibilities, for Subject Standards Examiners (SSE) are expected to attend Subject Standards Boards (SSBs), and Awards Board Examiners are expected to attend Awards Boards. SSEs are also invited to attend the Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEMs) as part of the Continuous Monitoring Process.

2.7. External Examiners should be conversant with the University’s Academic Regulations to discharge their duties. External Examiners will also be provided with induction to support engagement with their roles and responsibilities.

2.8. London Met will ensure that External Examiners for collaborative provision have full oversight of the modules and courses to which they are appointed, including resources which are available at the partner institution. This may be facilitated through electronic meetings (e.g. via skype/video conference) with academic staff members based at the partner institution.

2.9. Further details about the process are outlined in the External Examiners Handbook and in the Academic Regulations.

46 | P a g e

External Examiner Process 1. External Examiners nomination/extension/ reallocation of duties process

1.1 The University makes the Subject Standards Board (SSB) External Examiner (EE) appointments based on the External Examiner criteria. The nominating school should submit an EE nomination form (EEA1 for SSB EE or EEA2 for Award EE) and the curriculum vitae of the proposed EE. For Awards Examiner submit an External Awards Examiner form with the CV of the proposed Examiner. The Head of School or the Head of the Subject Area or Chair of School Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ) signs the nomination form before forwarding it to Academic Quality and Development (AQD).

1.2 For nominations for External Examiners for courses offered in collaboration with partner institutions, the Academic Liaison Tutor will need to consult with partner institutions to appoint appropriate External Examiners for the collaborative courses.

1.3 Appointments are considered and approved by Academic Quality and Development on behalf of the University’s Academic Board and the Vice Chancellor.

1.4 Appointments for Subject Standards Examiners are for four years in the first instance. At the request of the Head of School, a four-year term of office can be exceptionally extended for an additional year however; there must be a clear rationale and justification for the extension request.

1.5 After approval of the initial appointment, AQD generates a contract subject to verification of Right to Work in UK document, which is sent to the External Examiner to establish an agreement between the University and the External Examiner. New External Examiners will receive a handbook detailing their roles and responsibilities and other core information, a contract, Right to Work in UK verification process and other briefing details from AQD.

1.6 Appointments may be terminated early, at the request of either party or by agreement. Fees will not be payable where contractual responsibilities have not been carried out.

1.7 For EE extensions or re-allocation of duties, the Head of School should complete the extension/reallocation form (EER1) which is then submitted to AQD, who consider the request on behalf of the Academic Board and Vice Chancellor.

47 | P a g e

Table 1 outlines the nomination process for an external examiner:

48 | P a g e

2. Subject Standards Board (SSB) and Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM)

2.1 SSB meetings are to confirm academic standards at course level, confirming that students have been fairly assessed, that assessment has been fairly marked and moderated and that London Met’s regulations have been followed. Subject Standards Examiners (SSE) are required to attend relevant SSB. If an external is unable to attend the meeting in person, AQD will offer and support the option to participate in the meeting remotely.

2.2 Performance Enhancement Meetings (PEM) are not assessment boards and have no authority to consider and make decisions regarding either the confirmation of marks or the conferment of awards on individual students.

2.3 SSB and PEM structures are exactly same; all internals and External Examiners who are members of a SSB are members of the equivalent PEM, and the Chair and Vice-Chair are usually the same. The key elements of information considered by the PEM concern module results, course progression, and awards by course. Subject Standards Examiners (SSE) play a key role to these meetings.

2.4 Members of SSB including External Examiners meet to confirm marks, hence PEMs are the meetings where SSE of relevant SSB are optionally invited to PEM.

3. External examiners’ annual report 3.1 External Examiners are required to produce an annual report using online report

questionnaires. There are two formats: the Awards Examiner Annual Report and the Subject Standards Examiner (SSE) Annual Report. SSE's Annual Reports should be completed online unless other arrangements have been specifically made with appropriate members of AQD.

3.2 The SSE annual report must be submitted four weeks after June SSB or after the September SSB mark confirmation meetings, where responsibilities include summer modules and postgraduate dissertations. The External Examiner's report is placed on the University's Livelink site for consideration by academics from the relevant School and the University's senior academic management and also students.

3.3 Periodically, SSE reports are circulated to key stakeholders including the relevant course leaders, Head of Subject and Head of School. The course team will then be required to complete an EE report response template (AQD028), approved by the Head of School and Head of Subject, then sent to the External Examiner and AQD. If any urgent matters are identified, the Head of their respective area will correspond with the External Examiner to resolve the issue.

3.4 The course leader uses SSE report to assist the completion of the University’s continuous monitoring process. Full details of the monitoring processes are specified in the Continuous Monitoring section of the Quality Manual.

49 | P a g e

3.5 The above mechanism is in place to close the feedback loop on matters raised by External Examiners in their annual reports. However, it is recognised that an External Examiner might identify an issue which requires more urgent attention. In such cases, the External Examiner may address his/her concern directly to the Head of School, Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic Development, or the Vice-Chancellor as appropriate.

3.6 The deadline for External Examiners’ report is the 31st July of the same academic year and 30th September for summer and postgraduate dissertation modules. The deadline for responding to SSE report is the 31st August and 30th September for summer and postgraduate dissertation modules.

Table 2: Subject standards examiner annual report process:

50 | P a g e

4. External examiners activities calendar 4.1 The following timings apply to London Met’s own on-site taught provision. Different

timings may apply to collaborative partnerships to reflect different term and assessment dates, particularly for partner provision where PEM discussion is associated with SSB meetings:

• Start of October: Normal start date for tenure of new Subject Standards Examiners (SSE).

• Early October: Mark confirmation by SSB Chairs to confirm postgraduate dissertation and summer modules results for publication.

• From Early October to early December: SSEs are advised of the learning outcomes and assessment structure approved for each module, specifying assessment type, timing and weighting for each component. For coursework components throughout the module, proposed titles are provided for SSE comment, so that comments may be taken into account before the titles are published/confirmed to students. (If ready, proposed exam papers may also usefully be provided at this point in advance of the November deadline.)

• Mid October: University Awards Board. (Awards Examiners only.)

• Late October: London Met’s Continuous Monitoring process is an ongoing cycle of key checkpoints which continue throughout the academic year. Data produced after the Awards Board in October feeds into module and course action plans, a key part of Continuous Monitoring. Data from the Awards Board allows for the Continuous Monitoring data dashboards on Business Objects to be updated at both UG and PG levels for the completion action plans at both module and course levels. This data also enables the results of summer reassessment, PG dissertations and other modules to be included in monitoring processes. No meetings are required, but – subject to it being possible to produce in time – SSEs are invited to comment at course level on full year outcomes and at module level.

• Mid - Late November: External moderation by Subject Standards Examiners of internally agreed draft exam papers for autumn semester (January) exams and their associated reassessment period exams. PEMs to consider the teaching of taught provision assessment, module performance across autumn and spring semesters and course performance data including progression and awards.

• End November: Normal end date for tenure of Subject Standards Examiners, after four years unless tenure extended.

• Mid December: Deadline for submission of Awards Examiners’ Annual Reports for the previous academic year (ending with the mid-October Awards Board meeting).

51 | P a g e

• Late February: Subject Standards Examiners consider samples of students’ autumn semester work (for PG and UG 15 credit modules) and confirm marking standards.

• Early March: Mark confirmation by Subject Standards Board to confirm autumn semester module results (for PG and UG 15 credit modules) for publication. (SSB External Examiners participate)

• Mid-March: University Awards Board. (Awards Examiners only)

• Late March: External moderation by SSEs of internally agreed draft exam papers for spring semester (for PG and UG 15 and 30 credit modules) and, where there is no Autumn Semester exam, reassessment period.

• Mid-June: Subject Standards Examiners consider samples of students’ spring semester work (for PG and UG 15 and 30 credit modules) and confirm marking standards.

• Late June: Mark confirmation by SSB Chairs to confirm spring semester module results (for PG and UG 15 and 30 credit modules) for publication. (SSB External Examiners participate)

• Early July: University Awards Board. (Awards Examiners only)

• End July: Deadline for submission of Annual Reports for examiners with responsibility only for taught modules completed at the end of the Spring semester, i.e. excluding summer modules and postgraduate dissertations.

• End of August: Response to External Examiners’ annual reports using EE report response template (AQD028) and send copies of the responses to AQD.

• Beginning of September: Mark confirmation by SSB Chairs to confirm summer reassessment module results for publication.

• Early September: University Awards Board sub-committee for the Auditing of Taught Awards – only to confer awards arising from reassessment period. (Awards Examiners only.)

• Late September: SSEs consider samples of students’ postgraduate dissertation work and confirm marking standards.

• End of September: Deadline for submission of Annual Reports for the previous academic year for examiners with responsibility for postgraduate dissertations or other summer modules.

52 | P a g e

Student Engagement Overview 1. Internal and external reference points 1.1 The London Met policy and process for Student Engagement have been developed

in consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, the QAA Advice and Guidance on Student Engagement published in November 2018 and internal reference points such as the University’s Academic Regulations and General Student Regulations.

2. Student engagement overview 2.1 London Met is committed to enhancing the learning experience of its students. To

do this, London Met engages students in quality assurance and enhancement processes and provides student voice mechanisms to support collaborative discussions on improving the student experience.

2.2 London Met’s strategic approach to student engagement is managed and monitored by the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC) and the Student Engagement Panel.

3. Student engagement in quality processes 3.1 Students are actively engaged in all quality processes at London Met. Student

representatives are members of deliberative committees from the Board of Governors to Course Committees. This membership provides students with a platform to actively engage in discussions and decisions about their academic experience.

3.2 Student representatives include democratically elected representatives from London Met Students Union, and elected class student representatives.

3.3 Elected class student representatives represent their cohorts and attend Course Committee meetings to discuss and agree actions with London Met staff to improve the student experience and outcomes. These meetings occur twice in an academic year with minutes and actions being provided to student cohorts.

3.4 Student representatives are also panel members on validations and periodic reviews. This allows students to engage in the development and approval of courses and ensure that the student experience is fully considered in the development of London Met provision.

4. Surveys 4.1 London Met ensures that all students can provide feedback on their experience. To

do this all students are provided with opportunities using surveys. The following surveys are in operational at London Met;

53 | P a g e

• Module Feedback – This is available to students on levels 3-5, and this survey asks students to feedback on their module experience to allow module enhancements.

• Course Feedback – This is available to students on levels 3-5, and asks students to comment on their overall academic experience to allow for enhancement to the academic environment and community.

• Professional Survey Departments Survey – This is available to all students and allows students to provide feedback on their non-academic experience.

• National Student Survey – This is available to level 6 students and is a national survey asking students to provide feedback on their experience.

• Postgraduate Research Experience Survey – This is available to all PhD level students and asks students to provide feedback on their experience.

4.2 The results of surveys are received and considered at LTQC and School level LTQ committees to ensure that good practice is shared, and that action is taken in response to feedback.

4.3 Course teams are required to work with student representatives in closing the feedback loop, this includes reporting the outcomes of surveys at Course Committees and supporting the representatives in engaging with the wider cohort in collecting and providing responses to feedback.

5. Student engagement at collaborative partners 5.1 London Met’s collaborative partners are expected to engage students in the quality

of their academic experience.

5.2 Franchise and Joint partners are expected to have the same processes in place as those at London Met, including Student Representatives structures, course committees and surveys as outlined above.

5.3 Validated partners are expected to have comparable process to London Met and are required to confirm the processes in place with AQD and the academic school.

6. Reporting 6.1 Student engagement activities are reported to LTQC and school level committees.

Actions plans should be completed and discussed with students to ensure that there is collaborative agreement. Course teams are also required to discuss student feedback as part of the annual monitoring and periodic review process.

54 | P a g e

Course Modifications Policy 1. Internal and external reference points 1.1 London Met’s policy and process for course modifications have been developed in

consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, and the QAA Advice and Guidance on Course Development and Design published in November 2018.

1.2 Course Teams should consult and consider internal (Academic Regulations, General Student Regulations) and external reference points in the development of courses including Subject Benchmark Statements, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England (FHEQ), Apprenticeship Standards and any Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements.

2. Course modifications 2.1 London Met aims to develop and run courses that meet appropriate threshold

standards, provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and provide students with a high quality experience and positive outcomes. To ensure that all courses at London Met, including those at collaborative partners maintain their currency and respond to market forces and student feedback, it is sometimes necessary that Course Teams propose amendments.

2.2 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has delegated responsibility on behalf of Academic Board for the approval of modifications at London Met. APC will delegate responsibility to School LTQCs who will be required to report modifications to LTQC to ensure that modifications are reasonable, that due process has been followed and students have been included in the decision making.

2.3 Course amendments will be divided into material and non-material modifications. The types of modifications and process required are outlined in the Modifications Requirements Table (AQD030).

2.4 Periodic Review will be triggered if courses exceed material modifications of 30% of core modules, or 20% of core modules and another material change such as a change of title. School LTQCs in partnership with AQD will manage the modifications records for London Met courses. Collaborative partners will also be subject to these modification requirements.

2.5 Courses that are suspending intakes or closing are subject to processes outlined in Chapter 8 of the Quality Manual. Collaborative partners will also be subject to additional requirements as outlined in Chapter 11.

2.6 The modification will not be approved without accompanying evidence. The Modifications Requirements Table (AQD030) outlines full evidentiary requirements.

55 | P a g e

Course Modifications Process 1. Outline 1.1 The Course Modifications process at London Met supports the ability for courses to

continue to meet appropriate threshold standards, provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula and with a high quality experience. The process aligns with the Continuous Monitoring process and allows for courses to be amended during the approved validation cycle.

1.2 Given the contractual nature of the relationship between the University and students, modifications should only take place in response to issues and/or innovations as they arise to ensure the quality of the student experience.

1.3 Modifications may be identified through student feedback processes such as course committees or surveys, SSB and PEM meetings, External Examiner or PSRB feedback. All modifications should be mindful of Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) requirements.

2. Types of modification Material Modifications – Approval Required

2.1 Material Modifications are those that amend the ‘information provision’ that has been provided to applicants and students. These modifications are considered major as they affect the fundamental course structure, and includes the information provided in the course specification. Material Modifications include changes to;

• Entry requirements/criteria

• Core modules for the course (including status as core, credit weighting level, or addition/deletion/replacement of a core module)

• Course or module learning outcomes

• Module title change

• Module indicative syllabus

• Length of study

• Location of study

• Course regulations

• Fees and additional costs

• Assessment requirements (including methods and weightings)

2.2 Material modifications require approval by the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committees (SLTQC) and reporting to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) Material Modifications are recorded per course by AQD and SLTQC. Courses that exceed material modifications of 30% of core modules, or 20% of core modules and

56 | P a g e

another material change such as a change of title will be required to undergo a Periodic Review (process outlined in chapter 4 of the Quality Manual).

2.3 All material modifications will require consultation and feedback from External Examiners, PSRBs and students, including those who have accepted an offer on the course. On some occasions as per the Modifications Requirements Table (AQD030), External Examiners and students may have to confirm agreement to the modifications.

Non-Material Modifications – Notification Required 2.4 Non-material modifications are those that do not amend the fundamental course

structure and can include routine updates of course information. Non- material modifications include changes to;

• Assessment timings and/or weightings

• Bibliography

• Change of course or module leader

2.5 Non-Material modifications should be noted at SLTQC committees.

Modifications requiring APC Approval 2.6 A course title change is one of the most significant changes that can occur and

impacts on potential and continuing students. The consultation should therefore ensure that full consideration is given to the timing of a title change. Normally, continuing students should complete the course on the existing title and potential students should not be disadvantaged in their application to the University by any such change. (AQD032)

2.7 Should a School wish to change a title of a course, the relevant guidance and process in section 2.6 as well as the General Student Regulations should be adhered to. If, as a result of the consultation process, the need for title change is compelling, the course title change proposal form (AQD032) should be completed before the Head of School approaches the University’s Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) who will make a ruling in the case. If approval is given, the Secretary of the APC shall circulate formal notification about the decision attaching the updated course specification and including the date from which the change applies.

Modifications requiring approval of the Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQC)

2.8 Some changes will require approval of the University’s LTQC, these are:

57 | P a g e

• Variation – any departure from the framework which governs the course or module in question (Undergraduate/Postgraduate framework)

• Late Modifications – those are submitted after the given deadlines

3. Timelines for modifications

3.2 The deadline for modifications for September start to the SLTQC is December annually, this is 9 months before the proposed date of implementation which is the start of the next academic year. The modifications will then be noted at the January APC for formal ratification, and Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee (CTPSC) for collaborative academic partners.

3.3 For January starts, the deadline for modifications at SLTQC is May annually, this is 9 months before the proposed date of implementation. The deadlines allow for applicants to be fully informed of the changes and the most up to date course to be marketed for entry in September of the following academic year. Courses should operate for one full academic year from the point of validation before modifications are considered and approved.

3.4 Modifications for the same academic year are not allowed.

4. Process - material modifications

4.2 Course Teams are required to complete a Statement of Compliance (AQD031) before the required deadline and submit it to SLTQC. Course Teams should update course documentation using tracked changes. The Heads of School are required to sign off the material modifications outlined in the Statement of Compliance.

4.3 For material modifications and where changes to assessments are required, Course Teams should seek agreement from students on the proposed changes. Evidence of this agreement should be submitted along with the Statement of Compliance. Where applicants have accepted an offer, Course teams should liaise with Student Journey to ensure all offer holders are contacted.

4.4 Course Teams should also send the proposed changes to External Examiners and relevant PSRBs for review and approval. Evidence of approval should be attached to the Statement of Compliance. In some cases (changes to core modules) IT, Estates and Library may also need to be consulted.

4.5 Once all evidence is gathered and documentation completed, Course Teams should submit them to the SLTQC Officer for consideration at the SLTQC. The SLTQC will either approve or reject the change and this will be formally recorded in the minutes and the AQD modifications log.

4.6 Once approved, AQD will inform relevant professional service departments of the changes and circulate the updated documentation. Course Teams are required to

58 | P a g e

inform students, applicants (if relevant), the External Examiner(s) and PSRBs of the approved changes.

4.7 In January annually, the AQD business partner will submit the approved modification log to APC/CTPSC for formal ratification.

5. Process non-material modifications

5.2 Course Teams should update relevant documentation and complete the Statement of Compliance (AQD031). Course Teams must inform students, the External Examiner(s) and PSRBs (if applicable) of the proposed changes and this must be attached to the Statement of Compliance as evidence.

5.3 Once all evidence is gathered and documentation completed, Course Teams should submit them to the SLTQC Officer for consideration at the SLTQC. The SLTQC will either approve or reject the change and this will be formally recorded in the minutes and the AQD modifications log.

5.4 Once approved, AQD will inform relevant professional service departments of the changes and circulate the updated documentation. Course Teams are required to inform students, applicants (if relevant), the External Examiner(s) and PSRBs of the approved changes.

6. Monitoring modifications

6.2 SLTQC is responsible for monitoring the level of modifications. When modifications are proposed to SLTQC, the Committee should be made aware of previous modifications through the School modification log. If SLTQC or AQD judges that the courses have met the threshold or changes are extensive, a Periodic Review will be triggered.

7. Process flowcharts

59 | P a g e

Material modifications

Non-Material Modification

• Course team consult with and gain approval from students, offer holders, external examiners and PSRBs.

• Evidence of consultation and approval is obtained. • Course teams ensure CMA guidance is fully adhered to.

• Course teams complete the Statement of Compliance. • Course team updates course documentation. • If required, a Change of Title form is completed. • All evidence and documentation is attached and submitted to SLTQC.

Approval

• SLTQC consider the modification and previous modifications if applicable. • SLTQC either approve or reject the modification. • If approved the modifications log is updates to reflect changes. • The Modifications log is submitted to APC/CTPS for formal ratification. • AQD informs systems to update the course information. • Course teams inform stakeholders of the approved changes.

Course Team identifies

Modification

Statement of Compliance

• Course team inform students, offer holders, external examiners, and PSRBs of the proposed changes, and evidence of action is obtained.

• Course teams ensure CMA guidance is fully adhered to.

• Course team updates course documentation. • Course team completes the Statement of Compliance. • All evidence and documentation is attached and submitted to SLTQC.

Approval

• SLTQC note the modification and previous modifications if applicable. • The Modifications log is submitted to APC/CTPS for formal ratification. • AQD informs systems to update the course information. • Course teams inform stakeholders of the approved changes.

Statement of Compliance

Course Team identifies

Modification

60 | P a g e

Course Suspension and Closure Policy 1. Internal and external reference points 1.1 London Met policy and process for course suspension and closure have been

developed in consultation with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, the QAA Advice and Guidance on Course Development and Design published in November 2018 and the University’s Academic Regulations.

2. Course suspension 2.1 London Met aims to deliver courses that meet appropriate threshold standards,

provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and provide students with a high-quality experience and positive outcomes. Due to market forces and student feedback it may be necessary that course teams suspend course intakes.

2.2 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has delegated responsibility on behalf of the Academic Board for the approval of course suspensions at London Met. For collaborative provision the Collaborative Sub-Committee has delegated responsibility for course suspensions.

2.3 Course suspensions will be subject to approval at APC and can be no later than March for September starts, and October for January starts. Courses with firm acceptances are unlikely to be approved a suspension.

2.4 Once suspended, a course can remain suspended for a maximum of two intakes, after this period the course will be required to open recruitment or close fully. A Periodic Review will be required to ensure that the course currency remains valid.

3. Course closure 3.1 London Met acknowledges that courses may need to close to ensure that provision

is current, meets market and student demands, and delivers a high- quality academic student experience.

3.2 The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has delegated responsibility on behalf of the Academic Board for the approval of course closures at London Met. For collaborative provision Collaborative Sub-Committee has delegated responsibility for course closure. Collaborative provision may also be subject to partnership termination which is outlined in Chapter 11.

3.3 Course Closures will require teach out plans to be developed and implemented outlining how the quality of the student experience and outcomes will be maintained, along with timelines for modules. Students are to be involved in discussions and this will need to be evidenced throughout the closure process.

3.4 Course Closure is subject to the course closure process and will be considered on an individual basis at APC.

61 | P a g e

Course Suspension and Closure Process 1. Outline

1.1 The Course Suspension and Closure Process at London Met supports the ability to ensure that the University’s portfolio is current.

1.2 Given the contractual nature of the relationship between the University and students, course suspensions and closures should only take place in response to issues and/or innovations as they arise to ensure the quality of the student experience, or the ability for the courses to be delivered.

1.3 This process and timeline apply to both internal and collaborative academic partner provision. Both require approval at School Learning, Teaching, and Quality Committee (SLTQC) and the Academic Portfolio Committee (APC). Additionally, for collaborative academic provision the termination process may apply. Please see chapter 11 of the Quality Manual.

1.4 Institutional responsibilities begin at the point of offering courses, therefore, Course Teams should be mindful of the Competitions and Markets Authority’s (CMA) guidance for Higher Education providers.

2. Course suspension

2.1 Course Suspension should take place when there is either no intake for courses (formerly known as zero recruitment) or if the courses reach maximum capacity (course full). All course suspensions should be considered at SLTQC and then be approved by APC. A course can be suspended for other reasons such as unforeseen circumstances which might be beyond the University’s control and as a result it may affect the delivery of the course.

2.2 When considering a course suspension, Course Teams should ensure that this is completed in a timely manner and that any affected applicants are contacted prior to approval at SLTQC and APC. Course Teams should make every effort to ensure that applicants are consulted and offered alternative provision at the University.

2.3 Course Teams should consult with their Head of School when considering suspending provision. This should be completed as early in the admissions cycle as possible to ensure that applicants have sufficient time to change course or institution if necessary. Course Teams should complete the Course Suspension Form and submit to their SLTQ for consideration.

2.4 Once considered at SLTQ, the proposal should be submitted to APC for final approval. APC will consider the timing and implications of the proposal. They have the right to reject the course suspension proposal if it is deemed that there will be an impact on CMA compliance and applicants. Only APC have the right to approve course suspensions. If approval is granted, AQD will liaise with and inform Student Journey.

62 | P a g e

2.5 A course can be suspended for a maximum of two intakes, after which the course may be closed. For the course to be reinstated, Course Teams will need to submit a new business case for approval at APC.

3. Course closure

3.1 Course closures should take place when the course is not fit for purpose, or there has been serious impact on the student experience and outcomes. Schools should consider the impact of course closures on existing students as well as potential applicants. Course Teams will need to consider Student Protection Plans and teach out plans for students on the courses.

3.2 When closing a course, Course Teams should complete the Course Closure Form and consult with students on the courses to discuss and outline teach out plans. Evidence of consultation and agreement should be attached to the Course Closure Form and submitted to SLTQC for consideration.

3.3 Once considered at SLTQ, the form should be submitted to APC for approval. APC will consider the timing and implications on applicants when reviewing the course closure forms. APC have the right to not approve the course closures if it is deemed that there will be an impact on CMA compliance and applicants.

3.4 If approval is granted, AQD will liaise with and inform Student Journey.

4. Timelines for suspension and closure

4.1 The deadline for course suspensions and closures for September starts is March to APC, and October for January starts. There may be exceptions to this timeline if the course is full, and this will be agreed with the PVC (Academic Development).

63 | P a g e

Closure and Suspension Flow Chart

• Course teams decide whether a course needs to suspended or closed • Course teams consult with and gain agreement to proceed from Head of School. • Couse teams liaise with Marketing to discuss options for current offer-holders

and obtain evidence of feedback. • For Course closures, Course teams liaise with current students and agree a

teach-out plan.

• Forms are considered by APC for approval. • If approved, AQD liaise with Student Journey to make necessary

arrangements • If rejected, the course remains open for recruitment and Course team will

need to commence course.

School Level

Approval

APC Approval

• Course teams to complete the Course Closure form (AQD036) or Course Suspension form (AQD035)

• Form(s) are submitted to School LTQC for consideration and approval. • Approved form is sent to AQD for submission to APC.

Initial Stages

64 | P a g e

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) Policy

1. Internal and external reference points 1.1 The London Met policy and process for PSRBs have been developed in consultation

with the QAA Quality Code published in March 2018, the QAA Advice and Guidance on Course Development and Design and External Expertise published in November 2018 and internal reference points such as the Academic Regulations and General Student Regulations.

2. PSRBs

2.1 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) are a diverse group of professional and employer bodies, regulators and those with statutory authority over a profession or group of professionals. PSRBs engage with higher education as regulators. They provide membership services and promote the interests of people working in professions; accredit or endorse courses that meet professional standards, provide a route through to the professions or are recognised by employers.

2.2 London Met aims to deliver courses with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and encourage Course Teams where possible, to work with PSRBs and seek accreditation for courses.

2.3 Course Teams must recognise the differing types of PSRB accreditation that can be sought, including accreditation, recognition and endorsement. This must be accurately reflected in course documentation and marketing information for students.

2.4 Course Teams should consider PSRB requirements and accreditation at the course design stage. Where possible, accreditation events should take place alongside the validation event. PSRB accreditation can be sought after a course is validated and course teams are responsible for ensuring that accreditation requirements are met.

2.5 Schools must provide AQD with evidence of PSRB approval. This allows the AQD PSRB register to be updated and provides information for internal and external purposes such as the Unistats return. When an accreditation is due to expire, PSRBs will liaise with the School about the process for re-accreditation.

2.6 AQD will notify the School Learning, Teaching & Quality Committee (SLTQC) on the status of the School’s PSRB accreditations on an annual basis.

2.7 The register of PSRBs is checked and updated annually and submitted to the University’s Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee.

65 | P a g e

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) Process 1. PSRB (re)accreditation planning

1.1. Due to the diverse nature of PSRBs, the approach to the management of the accreditations should be determined by Schools and overseen by the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (SLTQC). The Head of School and Head of Subject should be consulted as part of the preparations.

1.2. Depending on the PSRB, the following types of accreditations are available: accreditation, recognition, endorsement, approved and prescribed.

1.3. Where a legally binding agreement between the School and the PSRB is proposed, the University Secretary Office (USO) can support the coordination and finalisation of the agreement.

1.4. Where possible, and where it is desirable, PSRB (re)accreditations should be undertaken alongside the University’s process for validation and periodic review of courses.

1.5. The Course Leader will prepare the documentation in support of the application for PSRB (re)accreditation and will seek approval from the Head of School and Head of Subject or the Chair of SLTQC.

1.6. Schools should inform Academic Business Administration (ABA) and AQD for any (re)accreditations scheduled to take place in the forthcoming academic year.

1.7. The ABA team will provide administrative support to Schools for the (re)accreditation events including providing secretariat service.

1.8. AQD will support Schools by providing information and guidance in preparation for and during the PSRB process. In addition, where appropriate and where required, AQD will attend PSRB accreditation meeting(s)..

1.9. Where a course or a group of courses is the joint responsibility of two or more Schools, the Head of each School will agree, in a timely manner, a suitable mechanism by which to manage the preparation for the (re)accreditation visit to allow each School the opportunity to comment on the documentation prior to submission to PSRB.

2. PSRB reporting

2.1. Schools will consider the outcome of PSRB engagements, the content of the PSRB (re)accreditation report and any recommendations and/or good practice arising, and the Course Team’s response to the report. Schools will inform AQD about the outcome of a (re)accreditation visit and forward evidence of the outcome.

2.2. Where responsibility for the courses is across two or more Schools, the Heads of Schools will agree, in a timely manner, a suitable mechanism by which to provide

66 | P a g e

each School the opportunity to consider the report; a single, consolidated response to the PSRB will be produced.

2.3. Actions in response to PSRB reports should be noted and monitored by the School LTQC, reflected in the Continuous Monitoring and in the next Periodic Review of the course(s).

The table below shows the PSRB process:

67 | P a g e

3. PSRB termination or withdrawal

3.1. For termination or withdrawal of accreditation, course leaders will advise the Head of School, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic) and AQD immediately if (re)accreditation is withdrawn and/or the outcome of the (re)accreditation is anything other than full approval.

3.2. Should accreditation be withdrawn from any course or the status be altered in any way, the School will inform AQD and all current students, including dormant students, offer holders and other potential students affected by the change and should avoid any disadvantage to the student(s).

4. PSRB record

4.1. Once Schools inform AQD about the outcome of (re)accreditations and send evidence to support the outcome, AQD will then store the information and evidence centrally and monitor the ongoing accuracy of information about PSRB accreditations on the University’s website.

4.2. AQD will report to the University’s Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee annually on the status of each of the PSRB(s).

68 | P a g e

Collaborative Academic Partnerships Policy 1. Reference points

1.1 The University’s approach to collaborative academic partnerships is guided by the University’s Strategic Plan and Portfolio Strategy.

1.2 This statement and associated policies were developed in consultation with the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Quality Code published in March 2018, and the QAA advice and guidance for Partnerships, Course Development and Design, and Monitoring and Evaluation published in November 2018.

2. London Met collaborative academic provision

2.1 London Met is committed to providing a high quality education and student experience for students based at London Met and at its collaborative academic partners. Collaborative academic partnerships allow London Met to offer opportunities locally, nationally and internationally. They support the development of a wider national and international perspective in the university, and encourage the dissemination of good practice in teaching and learning between different institutions.

2.2 Working in collaborative academic partnership can bring many benefits, but the activity also poses risks for the assurance and maintenance of academic standards and quality, and the quality of the student experience and outcomes. To address this London Met provides clear policies, guidance and training for both university and partner staff. London Met remains accountable for the academic standards and quality of all the awards given in its name.

2.3 London Met offers the following types of collaborative taught arrangements;

• Franchise – London Met may license other institutions to deliver whole courses, or stages of courses, designed by London Met staff, leading to an award or the award of credit by London Met as outlined in the course specifications. Changes in core modules may be permitted to reflect cultural and regional differences if learning outcomes remain consistent and can still be met. The partner may be permitted to develop a different set of optional modules within the course specification, if they enable the course learning outcomes to be met.

• Validated – London Met may accredit a course developed by another institution as equivalent to a London Met award, or leading to the award of a specific number of credits.

• Articulation – an arrangement whereby courses, and modules delivered by a partner institution are formally recognised for the purposes of advanced standing towards a London Met award.

69 | P a g e

Other models such as dual degrees and joint degrees may be considered. QAA guidance will be followed in all respects with regards to the development of different collaborative taught arrangements.

3. Collaborative policies and procedures

3.1 To ensure that London Met can assure the quality of collaborative taught provision, all collaborative academic partnerships are subject to institutional approval procedures which include due diligence checks, a site visit and an institutional approval event. These procedures and events will be completed by London Met staff including AQD, Partnerships and School staff working closely with staff at the Collaborative Academic Partner institution. Once approved, a collaborative partnership will be maintained and developed according to the policies and procedures, up to and including, the point of termination of the partnership and teach-out of provision.

3.2 Each partnership will be subject to institutional re-approval after three years in the first instance, and every five years thereafter to ensure that the quality of provision, student experience and outcomes meets the required standards. Course validation and periodic review events can take place alongside the institutional (re)approval events but will not take place if the institutional visit is unsuccessful.

3.3 All partnerships will require the agreement and completion of contracts that cover the operation of the partnership and the operation of specific courses. These are the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) and Course Level Agreement(s) (CLA). These agreements include clauses and arrangements with regards to approved courses, finance, marketing, and access to London Met services. Failure on the part of the collaborative academic partner in complying with the clauses set out in the IMoA or CLA will lead to an institutional review and possible termination of the partnership. No students may be taught without an active IMoA and relevant CLA being in place.

3.4 Wherever possible, the processes and procedures outlined in other sections of the Quality Manual will clarify how they relate to, and are applied to, the context of collaborative academic partnerships. This section of the Quality Manual outlines additional policies and procedures that apply to collaborative academic provision, specifically the approval and management of partnerships.

3.5 Partners will also be required to conform to London Met’s academic regulations, unless deviation from these has been explicitly approved e.g. at course validation.

3.6 A full list of London Met’s collaborative partners can be found on the Collaborative Partnership Register.

70 | P a g e

Collaborative Academic Partnerships Processes 1. Introduction

1.1 London Metropolitan University takes ultimate responsibility for the academic standards and quality of awards given in its name, irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with collaborative academic partners are implemented securely and managed effectively. Oversight of collaborative academic partnerships is included in the terms of reference of University level committees to ensure that this is embedded institutionally and this, in turn, is reflected in the terms of reference for School level committees to ensure consistent practice across the University.

2. Overview of roles and responsibilities

2.1. In the first instance, where prospective academic partners want to form a partnership with the University to deliver collaborative taught courses, the potential partnership must be considered by the Head of Partnerships and the Pro Vice Chancellor, Student Recruitment and Business Development, to ensure that the proposal aligns with the university’s collaborative strategy. The Pro Vice Chancellor Academic Development must also be consulted to ensure that the proposal aligns with the university academic portfolio and that the relevant School(s) of the university can provide the necessary support for the academic development. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will support both Partnerships and School colleagues in taking the proposal through the phases of outline approval and moving towards Institutional Approval and course validation.

2.2. In the case where a prospective academic partner wishes to work with the University to form an articulation agreement the partnership is considered by the Head of International Development, Heads of Academic Portfolio and the Pro Vice Chancellor, Student Recruitment and Business Development.

2.3 Once a collaborative academic partnership or course is approved, the Partnerships Facilitator has lead responsibility for generating the legal agreements (Institutional Memoranda of Agreement and Course Level Agreements) that will be signed by the University’s Vice Chancellor and the representative of the collaborative academic institution. Without these documents being in place, no students may be taught on London Met courses by the collaborative academic partner.

2.4 The ongoing day-to-day management of collaborative academic partnerships sits at School level, normally through the Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) appointed to the academic partnership. The ALT will ensure that the partnership adheres to London Met’s systems and procedures, taking advice as necessary from the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) on quality assurance matters. At a more strategic level,

71 | P a g e

there should be regular contact between senior members of the School, the AQD team and equivalent colleagues at the partner institution.

2.5 At the partner institution, a Course Leader will be appointed and will act as the main course contact. All staff involved in the delivery of London Met awards must be approved by the university via the course validation or subsequent approval/monitoring.

2.6 For a full description of the roles and responsibilities of the above, and the Partnership lifecycle, see the Partnerships Operational Manual.

3. Due diligence and institutional approval procedure for a new collaborative

academic partner

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 London Metropolitan University has a comprehensive process for considering and approving new collaborative academic partnerships, which is designed to identify and mitigate any risks that arise through operating in the specific partnership model. This process is followed for any potential collaborative academic partner who will be responsible for delivering a taught award(s) of the university.

3.1.2 At any time within the process detailed below the decision may be taken to discontinue the institutional approval process. AQD will retain details of any enquiries and due diligence undertaken and include details in the annual report on Institutional Approval to the Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee (CTPSC).

3.2. Initial investigation

3.2.1 Initial investigations relating to a potential new partnership should be considered by the Head of Partnerships, on behalf of the PVC Student Recruitment and Business Development. The Head of Partnerships must ensure that the proposal is supported by the PVC Academic Development and the relevant Head(s) of School. AQD should also be consulted at an early stage to advise on possible timescales for approval and the most suitable type of arrangement i.e. franchise, validation etc. If all parties agree there is potential to move forward, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will ask the prospective partner to complete the Institutional Information Form (AQDC0001).

3.2.2 The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will also submit a request to the University’s Engagement Department to complete the Reputational Check Form (AQDC002).

3.2.3 If the reputational check is unproblematic, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will secure the additional approvals required at this point. The Head of Partnerships; Head of School(s); Director of AQD and Pro Vice-Chancellor, Student Recruitment and Business Development will sign the Reputational Check Form. Once the full

72 | P a g e

approvals have been secured, depending on the nature of the prospective partnership, the Partnerships Facilitator may prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) (AQDC020) or a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) (AQDC021) for the University Vice Chancellor and the appointed representative of the prospective partner to sign.

3.2.4 An MoU or NDA will be required at this stage in the following instances:

(a) MoU: A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) should be used for all prospective international collaborative academic partnerships. It is non-legally binding but is an agreement to take the process forward.

(b) NDA: A non-disclosure agreement should be used in the case where the University has to submit confidential information as part of due diligence being conducted by a prospective academic partner and/or third party organisation.

In other instances the process will move straight to the due diligence stage.

73 | P a g e

Initial Investigation Process Flowchart

74 | P a g e

3.3 Due Diligence

3.3.1 After the MoU/ NDA is signed by the University Vice Chancellor and the prospective partner, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will ask the prospective partner to complete the Collaborative Academic Partner Due Diligence Form (AQDC004) and provide supporting evidence. This will include the following:

i. Financial information to include: name and address of auditors; last three years of audited accounts; budget for current year; financial forecasts for next three years; insurance policies (due to the sensitive information within these documents, they will only be shared with the AQD Office and the University’s Finance Office)

ii. Legal Registration Document

iii. Governance structure (organogram) and committees

iv. CVs of Management and senior staff

v. Resources Statement – academic and support staff (indicating F/T and P/T) and physical resources

vi. Strategic Plan

vii. Quality Assurance documents e.g. Quality Manual and all related policies

viii. Academic Regulations

ix. Equality and anti-bribery policies

x. References from existing institutional partners and current/previous students (AQDC006).

The Head of Partnerships will support the prospective partner, where necessary, in understanding, and responding to, the documentation request, and in preparing for institutional approval.

3.4 Site visit of the prospective partner

3.4.1 A visit of the prospective partner’s site will occur after the Collaborative Academic Partner Due Diligence Form (AQDC004) and all supporting evidence are received and initially considered by the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships). If the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) has serious concerns from the due diligence in relation to the potential partnership meeting London Met requirements for the assurance of quality and standards, progress to a site visit should not occur until the concerns are fully resolved. Discussion with the partner, Head of Partnerships and Director of AQD may be required to agree the way forward.

3.4.2 The purpose of the site visit is to ensure that students taught there would receive an experience comparable to that, which would be available on campus at London Metropolitan University. The Head of Partnerships or nominee approved by AQD will

75 | P a g e

conduct the visit. The outline agenda for the site visit should be followed (AQDC003) After the site visit, the Collaborative Site Visit Report (AQDC007) must be submitted to the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships), together with any additional evidence e.g. photographs of the site, CVs of teaching staff.

3.5 Collaborative Risk Assessment Report

3.5.1 The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) and a nominated member of the University Secretary’s Office and Finance Office are responsible for completing the Collaborative Risk Assessment Report (AQDC008), which is based on consideration of the Collaborative Academic Partner Due Diligence Form (AQDC004), the Collaborative Site Visit Report (AQDC007) and supporting evidence for both. Once this report has been approved by Director: AQD and the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Student Recruitment and Business Development, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will submit it to the Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee (CTPSC) for consideration and potential approval. The CTPSC should consider the prospective partner and proposed delivery and ensure it is in alignment with the University’s Partnership Strategy and Guiding Principles. The CTPSC is able to make recommendations or highlight conditions that need to be addressed at the institutional approval event, should it agree that one may be held.

3.6 Collaborative Academic Business Case

3.6.1 Concurrently whilst the Collaborative Risk Assessment Report is being completed and submitted to CTPSC, the Head of Partnerships or nominee will be responsible for completing the Collaborative Academic Business Case Form (AQDC005). This must be submitted to the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) for consideration and potential approval at the Academic Portfolio Committee (see Chapter 2 of the Quality Manual for details). The Head of the relevant School(s) must sign off the business case and will have responsibility for presenting the Collaborative Academic Business Case at APC.

3.6.2 Where consideration is occurring of a partnership in which the language of delivery of some or all courses will not be English, reference must be made to the University policy. Any exceptional or unusual circumstances must also be brought to the attention of APC.

3.6.3 By this point it will be important for the School to have nominated an Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) to support the partner with the course development for validation. For further information on Course Validation, please visit Chapter 2 in the Quality Manual.

76 | P a g e

3.7 Outline Approval

3.7.1 Outline approval is secured when:

i. The Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) has approved the Collaborative Academic Business Case (AQDC005).

ii. The Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee (CTPSC) has approved the Collaborative Risk Assessment Report (AQDC008).

3.7.2 Outline approval means that the proposal can progress to the Institutional Approval event stage. The approval/non-approval decision is captured in the minutes of the APC and CTPSC. The minutes will also include any recommended mitigation for identified risks, which must be considered at the Institutional Approval event. APC approval also stipulates when course delivery may commence.

3.7.3 If APC and/or CTPSC do not approve the proposal and no further actions can be taken to overturn the decision, the outcome should be communicated in writing to the prospective partner by the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships).

3.7.4 Once outline approval is granted the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will request the nomination of the Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) by the relevant School(s).

3.7.5 Outline approval means that the proposal can progress to the Institutional Approval event stage. The approval/non-approval decision is captured in the minutes of the APC and CTPSC. The minutes will also include any recommended mitigation for identified risks, which must be considered at the Institutional Approval event. APC approval also stipulates when course delivery may commence.

3.7.6 If APC and/or CTPSC do not approve the proposal and no further actions can be taken to overturn the decision, the outcome should be communicated in writing to the prospective partner by the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships).

3.7.7 Once outline approval is granted the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will request the nomination of the Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) by the relevant School(s).

77 | P a g e

Outline Approval Process Flowchart Diagram

78 | P a g e

3.8 Institutional approval event – arranging a date

3.8.1 Once outline approval is granted, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships), in discussion with the School(s) and the potential partner, will make arrangements for the Institutional Approval and course(s) validation event. By this point it will be important for the School to have nominated an Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) to support the partner with the course design and documentation for the validation event, as this is likely to follow on immediately after Institutional Approval. For further information on Course Validation, please visit Chapter 2 in the Quality Manual.

3.8.2 The Institutional Approval event will usually take place at the partner institution and precedes the course validation event. Any exceptions to the location of the event can only be approved by the CTPSC on the recommendation of the Director AQD.

3.8.3 The institutional approval and course validation events must usually be held at least six months ahead of any planned course delivery. The course validation will only go ahead with a successful institutional approval event.

3.8.4 The University charges a fixed fee plus costs for the Institutional Approval event. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) can advise on fees.

3.9 Institutional approval event – documentation to be considered

3.9.1 Much of the documentation for the Institutional Approval event will have been made available at the due diligence stage (see section 3.3). However, the partner may be required to refresh or provide more comprehensive information to provide context for the panel on the nature, history, operation, and the potential of the institution. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will usually require the full information from the prospective partner six weeks prior to the event. The panel should receive the collated documentation from the AQD Office four weeks prior to the event.

3.9.2 The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) or a nominated member of AQD is responsible for preparing the Institutional Approval Event Agenda, and membership list (AQDC009).

3.9.3 In addition to the agenda and briefing note, institutional approval documentation will typically include the following:

i. Background information ii. Collaborative Site Visit Report iii. Collaborative Academic Business Case (abridged) iv. Legal Registration Document v. Governance structure (organogram) and committees vi. CVs of Management and senior staff

vii. Resources Statement – academic and support staff (indicating F/T and P/T) and physical resources

viii. Strategic Plan

79 | P a g e

ix. Quality Assurance documents e.g. Quality Manual and all associated policies x. Academic Regulations xi. Equality and anti-bribery policies

3.9.4 AQD will be advised by the University’s Finance Office on the financial standing of

the potential partner institution, to provide assurance that the risk of the partnership failing on account of this is low. This information will not be shared with the Panel.

3.10 Institutional approval event – panel membership

3.10.1 The Institutional Approval event is conducted by a small panel of University staff (academic Chair from another School, a senior member of the AQD Office and, on occasion, an internal member also without the School). The panel usually includes an experienced external member with a background in collaborative provision. The Secretary to the Panel should be the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) or another appointed member of AQD.

3.10.2 The Chair should have significant experience of collaborative academic provision and an ability to critically evaluate institutional capacity to deliver University provision. Other panel members should also be experienced in collaborative provision and quality and standards management. Where appropriate, additional panel members with specialist expertise such as online learning will be drawn from the University.

3.10.3 External Advisors on the panel should have broad experience of UK higher education at a senior level and be capable of independent judgement. Impartiality is further safeguarded by ensuring that external advisors have not had any association with the University within the last five years prior to the Institutional Approval event. This would normally exclude former employees who have worked at the University within the last five years. AQD are responsible for conducting Right to Work checks on all External Advisors and confirming appointment prior to any documentation being sent. For further information on the Right to Work check process please click here. External advisors are required to provide initial feedback on the documentation, participate fully in the event and submit a post-event report to the AQD Office.

3.10.4 Guided by the Chair, the panel are asked to form a view on the strengths and weaknesses of the potential partner in terms of governance, capacity and delivery systems. In particular consideration must be given to any risk report mitigation as recorded in the CTPSC minutes. The panel also needs to assess the likelihood of the proposed partnership being mutually beneficial and operationally successful, in that the prospective partner will have the capacity to deliver the university’s awards to the required academic standards.

80 | P a g e

3.11 Institutional approval event – attendees

3.11.1 The AQD officer will liaise with the prospective partner and confirm the attendees for the Institutional Approval event. Attendees from the Partner will include senior management and teaching and professional services staff.

3.11.2 There should be an opportunity for the event panel to meet existing students. Comments made by students can be included in the outcomes report but the individual student must not be directly quoted.

3.11.3 A tour of the partner facilities will always be required. This should include classrooms, library areas and non-teaching communal areas.

3.12 Institutional approval event – outcomes

3.12.1 At the end of the meeting the Institutional Approval panel must recommend one of three outcomes:

i. recommend approval;

ii. recommend approval subject to one or more conditions;

iii. not recommend approval.

The panel may also make commendations and recommendations.

If the approval is subject to conditions then a date must be specified for the completion of the conditions.

3.12.2 The Secretary to the Panel will produce the outcomes report within five working days of the event. A full Institutional Approval event report is subsequently written for CTPSC and will include the post event report from the external advisor(s). This report will detail more fully the reasons for the panel’s decision and its assessment of the ability of the prospective partner to deliver London Met awards to the required academic standards. CTPSC will use the full Institutional Approval report as the basis for its decision on institutional approval.

3.12.3 The prospective partner is responsible for meeting all conditions set by the panel by the deadline date agreed. All documentation to support meeting the conditions should be sent to the Secretary to the Panel. All conditions must be met before the institutional approval can be confirmed and contracts established.

3.12.4 Recommendations by the panel must be addressed alongside the response to the conditions of approval. Recommendations should also be considered in the annual monitoring course log at the Institutional Review event which will normally takes place after three years in the first instance.

3.12.5 Once all documentation has been received, the AQD Quality Manager

81 | P a g e

(Partnerships) will liaise with the Chair of the event to review the responses and confirm which conditions have been met. If the prospective partner meets all the set conditions, the Chair will recommend institutional approval to the CTPSC. The Chair’s sign off must be recorded in writing (AQDC016). If part or none of the conditions are met, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise with the Chair of the event and communicate the items that need to be addressed and recommended actions to take to the prospective partner. A new deadline date will be agreed between the prospective partner, the Chair of the event and the AQD Office.

3.12.6 It is important to note that any delays in meeting conditions can potentially affect the start date of delivering proposed courses. Courses cannot run until the institutional approval and course validation is confirmed and relevant contracts are in place.

3.12.7 The AQD Officer is responsible for notifying the approved partner of the outcome in writing and is responsible for notifying relevant colleagues across the University of the outcome.

3.13 Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA)

3.13.1 The Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) (AQDC017) sets out the contractual arrangements between the University and a collaborative academic partner. The period for institutional approval detailed in the IMoA is usually three years for the initial approval and thereafter five years.

3.13.2 When the institutional approval process is completed, the Partnerships Facilitator will liaise with the partner and the School(s) regarding the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement to agree drafts and to take this forward to finalisation and sign off. Sign- off must be secured from the University Vice Chancellor and the appointed representative of the new partner.

3.13.3 The IMoA needs at least one associated Course Level Agreement (CLA) (AQDC022) to be brought in to force.

3.13.4 The Partnerships Facilitator and the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise closely to ensure that all necessary contracts are in place before delivery commences at the new partner.

3.14 Change of ownership

3.5.1 Change of ownership of an approved collaborative academic partner will require a refresh of due diligence and institutional approval. This may be a purely desk-based process or require a new institutional approval event. Director AQD will advise. In all cases new contracts will be required to reflect the change of ownership and the university’s relationship with a new institution.

82 | P a g e

Institutional approval process flowchart diagram

83 | P a g e

4. Process for Approval of new sites or campuses of approved institutions 4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. A site visit for a new site or campus of an approved institution is undertaken in the following scenarios:

i. When an existing collaborative academic partner moves to a new site

ii. When an existing collaborative academic partner wishes to deliver London Met provision at an additional site.

4.1.2. The purpose of the site visit for a new site or campus of an approved partner is to ensure the suitability of the academic environment, to confirm comparability of the student experience and maintain quality and standards across all sites at which London Met courses are delivered. The relationship between the new site or campus and the operation of other approved sites, and the partner operation as a whole, will be considered as part of the review of suitability. Arrangements for managing multi- site delivery will be reviewed. Consideration should also be given to the type of courses that will be delivered at the site.

4.2. Business case approval 4.2.1. The Collaborative Academic Additional Site Business Case Form (AQDC010) should

be completed by the Head of Partnerships. Once all necessary sign-offs are recorded on the form, it should be submitted to the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) to forward for Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) consideration. The Head of the relevant School (s) will have responsibility for presenting the Collaborative Academic Additional Site Business Case Form to APC. A site visit cannot be conducted prior to APC approval.

4.3. Due diligence of new teaching site

4.3.1. Prior to a site visit being arranged, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will identify the documentation required from the collaborative academic partner to inform the panel undertaking the site visit.

4.3.2. The documentation requirement is based on the following list:

i. Document/s detailing the legal status and ownership of the new site or campus

ii. Document/s detailing the arrangements for lease of the new site or campus (if not owned by the collaborative partner)

iii. Documents detailing the insurance arrangements which will be in place in respect of the delivery centre’s responsibilities and liabilities towards students (i.e. public liability and professional indemnity insurance)

84 | P a g e

iv. Details of the management and organisational structure of the new site or campus and relationship with other site/s

v. Description of the physical and human resources available at the new site or campus, including student support services

vi. Description of the quality assurance arrangements that will be in place at the delivery centre for:

• curriculum development, where applicable;

• teaching, learning and assessment methods;

• feedback to students on assessed work;

• tracking student progression and achievement;

• monitoring and review of courses;

• collection and evaluation of student feedback;

• student academic and pastoral support;

• management and administration of the assessment process;

• student complaints and academic misconduct;

• student engagement;

• maintenance of student records.

• staff appointment, monitoring and development

The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will review the documentation submitted by the partner in advance of the visit and provide a brief for the panel undertaking the visit, to support their understanding of the operation of the new site or campus.

4.4. Undertaking the site visit

4.4.1 The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will organise the date of the visit, in association with the collaborative academic partner. The aim of the visit is to examine the suitability of the academic environment in which London Met courses will be offered, including the staff team, academic and physical resources, and student support services.

4.4.2 The scale of the site visit will be as follows:

a) Where courses are to be delivered by a new team of academic staff at a new site the visit panel will comprise:

• A senior member of staff from the School (Chair)

• Officer to the event

• External assessor (in relation to the course validation, input may be by

85 | P a g e

correspondence as determined by AQD)

The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) may also be in attendance.

b) Where the provision at the new site is to be delivered by staff that already teach at another approved campus, the visit panel will comprise a senior member of staff of the School, plus the officer to the event.

The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) may also be in attendance.

c) Where the additional location represents only a teaching location (all the teaching staff are employed and based at the main site, and all student support and learning resources are provided from the main site or via e-delivery), the visit may be undertaken by a senior member of the School staff or exceptionally the Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) as agreed by the Director of AQD. They will complete the Site Visit report.

d) Where a site visit is required as a result of a move of premises, the visit will be undertaken by a senior member of the School staff or exceptionally the Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT), as agreed by the Director of AQD. They will complete the Site Visit report.

4.5. Site Visit - Outcomes

4.5.1. At the end of the site visit the panel must recommend one of three outcomes:

i. recommend approval;

ii. recommend approval subject to one or more conditions;

iii. not recommend approval.

The panel may also make recommendations. If the approval is subject to conditions then a date must be specified for the completion of the conditions.

4.5.2. A Collaborative Site Visit Report (AQDC007) should be completed by the Head of Partnerships with supporting paperwork and submitted to the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships). The report will be received and considered by the CTPSC on behalf of the LTQ Committee. London Met provision cannot be delivered at an additional site prior to CTPSC approval.

4.5.3 The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) is responsible for communicating the

86 | P a g e

outcome of the site visit to the collaborative academic partner and all relevant staff within the University. Where the site has not been approved, the collaborative academic partner will be given the opportunity to consider the feedback and may be given the opportunity to re-submit the site for approval following the usual process.

4.6. Institutional memorandum of agreement and course level agreements

4.6.1 The Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) and any relevant Course Level Agreements (CLA) must be updated to record the approved locations for teaching and will need to be signed by the University’s Vice Chancellor and representative of the collaborative academic partner. The Partnerships Facilitator will lead on the re- drafting process, working with the collaborative academic partner and the School. The Partnerships Facilitator and the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise closely to ensure that all necessary contracts are in place before delivery commences at the new location. No teaching can take place at the new site until the required contracts are in place.

87 | P a g e

Approval of new sites or campuses Process Flowchart Diagram

88 | P a g e

4.7. Modification of courses delivered by collaborative academic partners

4.7.2. It is important that all courses retain their currency and reflect updates in curriculum and student feedback. Courses delivered at collaborative academic partners are subject to the same modification process as those delivered by London Met. Further details of the process are in Chapter 7.

4.7.3. The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) should support the collaborative academic partner in submission of the modification documentation to the university

4.8. Continuous monitoring of courses delivered by collaborative academic partners

4.8.1. Courses delivered at collaborative academic partners are subject to the same principles of, and requirement for, continuous monitoring as those delivered by London Met. However, there are some slight amendments in the process to reflect the additional risks inherent in course delivery via a third party and the need for slightly different reporting systems. Further details of the process are on Chapter 3.

4.8.2. The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) should support the collaborative academic partner in delivery of the continuous monitoring reporting to the university. This will include review and feedback on action plans and reports to be submitted.

4.9. Periodic Review of courses delivered by collaborative academic partners

4.9.1. Courses delivered at collaborative academic partners are subject to the same requirement and schedule for periodic review as those delivered by London Met. Further details of the process are in Chapter 4.

4.9.2. The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) should support the collaborative academic partner in preparing for the periodic review event. This will include review and feedback of the self-evaluation documentation and the updated course materials, including course and module specifications, where relevant.

4.10. Institutional review of an existing collaborative academic partner

4.10.1. Introduction

4.10.2. Collaborative Academic Partnerships will be reviewed using the process of Institutional Review. Institutional Review focuses on an evaluation of the partnership as a whole, its strategic and operational fit with the University, and on ensuring that overall quality and standards are appropriate. The University is committed to making Institutional Review a consultative, reflective and genuinely collaborative process of engagement with partners.

89 | P a g e

4.10.3. The main aims of Institutional Review are to:

i. explore and to provide assurance that the partnership is operating, on the part of both partners, in accordance with the terms of the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) and the Course Level Agreement/s (CLA);

ii. provide continued assurance to the University that the partner’s governance, management and mechanisms for quality assurance remain robust;

iii. assist the partner in an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses at an institutional level with particular regard to teaching and learning and the strategic management of provision;

iv. draw on feedback from External Examiners and students to be able to identify potential improvements to the management of the partnership and ultimately the enhancement of the student experience and student outcomes;

v. reaffirm the collaborative partnership.

4.10.4. Institutional Review is a separate process to periodic review of courses run with collaborative academic partners, although there is some cross-over between the two and the two may be considered as separate parts of one event.

4.11 Timing of an Institutional Review

4.11.1. Institutional Approval is usually given for three years initially and thereafter for five years. In the academic year prior to the expiry of the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA), a formal Institutional Review process will be undertaken, organised by the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) or other nominated member of AQD.

4.11.2. The date for the institutional review will be agreed between AQD and the collaborative academic partner at least six months prior to the event and the partner will be given key deadlines to prepare documentation. Usually the Institutional Review and Course Periodic Review events should be planned together and held consecutively.

4.11.3. The University charges a fixed fee plus costs for the Institutional Review event. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) in AQD can provide details of this.

4.11.4. Should serious concerns arise during the period of the IMoA regarding the sustainability of the partnership and/or the academic quality and standards at the partner, the university can require the partner to participate in an exceptional Institutional Review out with the usual schedule. The Director AQD must seek approval for this from CTPSC. The documentation requirement may be amended to reflect particular concerns of the university.

90 | P a g e

4.11.5. An exceptional Institutional Review may also be generated where a partner repeatedly fails to comply with the required quality assurance processes as detailed in the university Quality Manual. The Director AQD must seek approval for this from CTPSC. The documentation requirement may be amended to reflect particular concerns of the university.

4.12 Institutional review event – documentation to be considered

4.12.1. For a routine Institutional Review the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will ask the collaborative academic partner to refresh or provide comprehensive information to provide context for the panel on the nature, history, and operation of the institution. This will include:

i. Self-Evaluation Document (SED) (AQDC028)

ii. Governance structure (organogram) and committees

iii. CVs of Management and senior staff

iv. Resources Statement – academic and support staff (indicating F/T and P/T) and physical resources

v. Strategic Plan

vi. Quality Assurance documents e.g. Quality Manual and all associated policies

vii. Academic Regulations

viii. Equality and anti-bribery policies

ix. Collaborative Annual Monitoring Statements

x. Partnership Annual Monitoring Statements

xi. QAA Reports (if applicable)

xii. Financial information to include: name and address of auditors; last three years of audited accounts; budget for current year; financial forecasts for next three years; insurance policies (due to the sensitive information within these documents, they will only be shared with the AQD Office and the University’s Finance Office)

The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) should usually receive the documentation from the collaborative academic partner at least six weeks prior to the event. The panel should usually receive the collated documentation from the AQD Office four weeks prior to the event. In addition to material provide by the

91 | P a g e

collaborative academic partner, this will include the Institutional Review Event Agenda, Panel Briefing Note and membership list (AQDC009)

4.12.2. AQD will be advised by the University’s Finance Office on the ongoing financial standing of the partner institution, to provide assurance that the risk of the partnership falling on account of this is low. This information will not be shared with the Panel.

4.13 Institutional Review Event – Panel Membership

4.13.1. The Institutional Review event is conducted by a small panel of University staff (academic Chair from another School, a senior member of the AQD Office and, on occasion, an internal member also without the School). The panel also generally includes an experienced external member with a background in collaborative provision. The Secretary to the Panel is usually the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) or another appointed member of AQD.

4.13.2. The Chair should have significant experience of collaborative academic provision and an ability to critically evaluate institutional capacity to deliver University provision. Other panel members should also be experienced in collaborative provision and quality and standards management. Where appropriate, additional panel members with specialist expertise such as online learning will be drawn from the University.

4.13.3. External Advisors on the panel should have broad experience of UK higher education at a senior level and be capable of independent judgement. Impartiality is further safeguarded by ensuring that external advisors have not had any association with the University within the last five years prior to the Institutional Approval event. This would normally exclude former employees who have worked at the University within the last five years. External advisors are required to provide initial feedback on the documentation, participate fully in the event and submit a post-event report to the AQD Office. AQD are responsible for conducting Right to Work checks on all External Advisors and confirming appointment prior to any documentation being sent. For further information on the Right to Work check process.

4.13.4. Guided by the Chair, the panel are asked to review the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership in terms of governance, capacity and delivery systems, its strategic and operational fit with the University, and overall quality and standards. The panel should be able to form a judgement on the continued capacity of the partner to deliver London Met awards to the required academic standards.

4.14 Institutional Review Event – Agenda

4.14.1. The AQD Officer will confirm the agenda for the Institutional Review event, based

92 | P a g e

on the template (AQDC009). Attendees from the Partner will include senior management and teaching staff. There should be an opportunity for the event panel to meet existing students and, where possible, alumni. A tour of the collaborative academic partner’s facilities will always be required.

4.14.2. The relevant Head of School and the appointed Academic Liaison Tutor(s) will usually attend the Institutional Review event. The Head of Partnerships may also attend.

4.15 Institutional Review Event – Outcomes

4.15.1. At the end of the meeting the Institutional Review panel must recommend one of three outcomes:

i. recommend re-approval;

ii. recommend re-approval subject to one or more conditions;

iii. not recommend re-approval.

The panel may also make commendations and recommendations. If the approval is subject to conditions then a date must be specified for the completion of the conditions.

4.15.2. The Secretary to the Panel will produce the outcomes report within five working days of the event. A full Institutional Review event report is subsequently written for the Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee (CTPSC) and will include the post event report from the external advisor(s). This report will detail more fully the reasons for the panel’s decision and its assessment of the ability of the partner to continue delivery of London Met awards at the required academic standards. CTPSC will use the full IR report as the basis for its decision on institutional re-approval.

4.15.3. The collaborative academic partner is responsible for meeting all conditions set by the panel by the deadline agreed. All documentation to support meeting the conditions should be sent to the Secretary to the Panel. All conditions must be met before the institutional re-approval can be confirmed and contracts renewed.

4.15.4. Recommendations by the panel must be addressed alongside the response to the conditions of approval. Recommendations should also be considered in the Partner Continuous Monitoring Statement.

4.15.5. Once all documentation has been received, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise with the Chair of the event to review the responses and confirm which conditions have been met. If the partner meets all the set conditions, the Chair will recommend institutional re-approval to the CTPSC. The

93 | P a g e

Chair’s sign off must be recorded in writing (AQDC016). If part or none of the conditions are met, the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise with the Chair of the event and communicate the items that need to be addressed and recommended actions to take. A new deadline date will be agreed between the prospective partner, the Chair of the event and AQD.

4.15.6. It is important to note that any delays in meeting conditions can potentially affect the continued delivery of courses. Courses can only run when relevant contracts are in place.

4.15.7. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) or AQD Officer is responsible for notifying the approved partner of the event outcome in writing and is responsible for notifying relevant colleagues across the University of the outcome.

4.16 Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA)

4.16.1. The Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) (AQDC017), sets out the contractual arrangements between the University and a collaborative academic partner. The period for institutional approval detailed in the IMoA is usually three years for the initial approval and thereafter five years.

4.16.2. When the Institutional Review process is completed, the Partnerships Facilitator will liaise with the partner and the School(s) regarding the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement to agree drafts and to take this forward to finalisation and sign off. Sign- off must be secured from the University Vice Chancellor and the appointed representative of the new partner.

4.16.3. The IMoA needs at least one associated CLA (AQDC022) to be brought in to force.

4.16.4. The Partnerships Facilitator and the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise closely to ensure that all necessary contracts are in place before delivery re-commences.

94 | P a g e

Institutional review process flowchart diagram

95 | P a g e

5. Process for suspension or closure of courses delivered by collaborative academic partners

5.1 London Met aims to deliver courses that meet appropriate threshold standards, provide students with an inclusive and up to date curricula, prepare students for employment, and provide students with a high-quality experience and positive outcomes. Due to market forces and student feedback it may be necessary that course teams suspend course intakes or recommend courses for closure. The process for this at collaborative academic partners is the same as that for on campus provision.

5.2 The Academic Liaison Tutor (ALT) should support the collaborative academic partner in providing any documentation to the university for course suspension or closure.

6. Process for termination of collaborative academic partnerships 6.1 Introduction

6.1.1. The University will review the progress and success of its collaborative academic partnerships on an ongoing basis. A decision to terminate a partnership or course may be taken to reflect one of a number of factors including: lack of alignment with the university’s strategic direction; poor recruitment; local political, social or economic instability; poor development of academic quality; poor financial return; reputational risk to the university.

6.2 Termination Process

6.2.1. The decision to terminate a collaborative academic partnership must be agreed by both the PVC Student Recruitment and Business Development and the PVC Academic Development. The Head of Partnerships should submit the Partnership Termination Request Form (AQDC012) to the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) for Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) consideration.

6.2.2. When a partnership termination has been agreed by APC, the PVC Academic Development will contact the collaborative academic partner to inform them of the decision. The Head of Partnerships and relevant Head(s) of School will agree a termination agreement with the partner in respect of the provision for each School of the University. The Termination Agreement Form (AQDC029) will be drawn up by the Partnerships Facilitator to record the details of the termination agreement/s. The Partnerships Facilitator and the AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will liaise closely to ensure that the content is appropriate.

6.2.3. The termination agreement will reflect the terms of the Institutional Memorandum of Agreement (IMoA) and any relevant Course Level Agreements (CLAs). The termination agreement will include provisions to ensure effective teach-out of any

96 | P a g e

students registered at the collaborative academic partner, thus enabling the university to discharge its duty to those students. Where a partner works with more than one School there may be more than one termination agreement brought into effect.

6.2.4. During the period that the termination agreement/s are in effect the collaborative academic partner may be subject to revised continuous monitoring requirements. The AQD Quality Manager (Partnerships) will work with the relevant ALTs to agree the requirements on a case by case basis, ensuring that these fulfil the university’s obligations with regards to quality assurance of all its provision. For further guidance on specific annual monitoring requirements, please refer to Chapter 3 of the Quality Manual.

6.2.5. Where a collaborative academic partner has to cease business suddenly, for example due to financial difficulties, the University will consider the partnership to be terminated. The contingency arrangements agreed between the University and the partner, as detailed in the IMoA or CLAs will come into effect. These arrangements will ensure that the university can continue to fulfil its obligations to students registered at the collaborative academic partner.

6.2.6. Course closure at any collaborative academic partnership will follow the same course closure process that applies to in-house provision. For further guidance on closing courses, please refer to Chapter 8 of the Quality Manual.

97 | P a g e

Termination of partnership process flowchart

98 | P a g e

Short courses policy 1. Introduction 1.1 A short course is a period of learning for which a student may or may not be

awarded credit, but which does not lead to any qualification as described in the University’s Undergraduate or Postgraduate Awards Framework or lead to a nationally recognised higher education award, as defined in the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ).

1.2 It may be made up of existing modules already validated by the University or may also consist of entirely new material. The mode of delivery does not have to conform to the standard pattern.

1.3 For a credit bearing short course to be considered under these procedures, the level of credit it carries must be less than the minimum credits required for any qualification described in the Undergraduate Awards Framework or in the Postgraduate Awards Framework. If the course is designed to award credit equivalent to any of those awards, and therefore by definition, students studying on it would be eligible for an award of the University, it must be considered through standard course approval procedures.

2. School short course co-ordination 2.1 Each School has responsibility for coordinating the approval of Short Course

development within their area via the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (SLTQC). There should be a point of contact where short course information is managed as assigned by the Head of School. This point of contact is be responsible for:

• Steering new short course proposals through the approval process, ensuring that the Marketing and Student Journey are notified of all courses following outline approval

• Maintaining the short course information in the Course Offer Database (COD) and approving for publication, for credit bearing courses.

• Updating the appropriate AQD Business Partner

• Providing a contact point for AQD and Student Journey.

3. Short courses log 3.1 Each SLTQC is responsible for the update and management of a short courses log.

Short Courses should be added to the log at the initial development stage and updated as the proposal progresses. This log will keep track of all Short Course proposals and will feed into the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee

99 | P a g e

(LTQ) and also to the University’s Academic Portfolio Committee (APC). Schools must own the Short Courses Log however it should also be shared with colleagues in AQD, principally School Business Partners.

4. Involvement of AQD business partners 4.1 Nominated school staff should liaise with the relevant AQD Business Partner for

their School at the proposal stage of Short Course development. AQD Business Partners should be notified of the development of a new Short Course as they can provide advice and guidance and highlight queries or issues from a quality assurance perspective. The Quality Manager (Academic Liaison and Student Outcomes), who manages the Business Partnering relationship between AQD and the Schools should also have oversight of this stage of Short Course development.

100 | P a g e

Short Courses Process 1. Introduction 1.1 The process for the approval of a short course are designed to allow Schools to

respond to commercial opportunities, whilst at the same time ensuring that academic standards and the quality of learning are not compromised.

1.2 The approval process differentiates between courses which offer credit and those which do not and draws necessary distinctions between the two in terms of the level of central University approval required.

2. Approval process 2.1 A proposal for a short course can be made at any time of the year. However,

consideration should be given to the time required for marketing and preparation of materials required for delivering the course. Proposers are advised to allow three months from the point of proposal of a short course, to its implementation.

2.2 All proposals must use the Short/Professional Course Proposal Form (AQD043) available here.

2.3 Approval for short courses is granted through the School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQ) or reported there if approval has been given through Chair’s Action.

2.4 Upon approval, the School must forward the proposal to:

• the Secretary to the APC for noting at the next meeting

• the Senior Administrative Officer (Livelink and Course Information) in Student Journey to add to the Course Offer Database (COD)

2.5 For credit bearing short courses, in addition to the above approval process, the School must forward the proposal and relevant course documentation (module specification(s)) to an appropriate external advisor for assurance on the credit and level involved, prior to School LTQC consideration.

2.6 Where the proposal is to offer an existing module or modules as free-standing short courses, existing external examiners may consider the proposal. Where the proposal includes an entirely new short course of more than one module, the School is responsible for seeking comment from a new external advisor according to subject knowledge, professional expertise and impartiality (the nominee should not have had any formal links with the School during the last five years or the last three years as an external examiner).

101 | P a g e

3. Certificates

3.1 Transcripts and certificates for credit bearing short courses are produced by Student Journey. Certificates of Attendance for non-credit bearing short courses must follow guidance provided by Student Journey.

4. Collaborative arrangements

4.1 Where credit-bearing short course proposals are delivered in collaboration with a partner, a Course Level Agreement (CLA) is required. The CLA should include, inter alia, details of arrangements for registration, assessment, student feedback, and financial arrangements.

4.2 Where collaborative partners are involved in the delivery of a short course the name of the partner will be included on certification of attendance etc.

5. Maintaining a record of all school short course provision

5.1 A record of all Short Courses and their current status (i.e. approved/suspended/closed) must be considered and updated at the School LTQC and reported to AQD for information.

6. Modification of short courses

6.1 The School must inform its AQD Business Partner of any significant changes to be made to the short course in order that an up-to-date record may be maintained. Depending on the nature of the change, it may be necessary for a further round of approval to be sought.

7. Publication and marketing

7.1 Following notification of School approval, the Marketing Team in External Relations creates a webpage for the School to populate with course information.

7.2 On 1st January in each academic year, the prospectus entries should automatically be copied forward for the next but one academic year. For example, on 1st January 2018, the prospectus entries for 2018/19 should be created by copying the entries for 2017/18. These should all have a status of ‘draft’ and not be displayed on the website.

7.3 Once copied, the new Prospectus Entries should be edited as required by the School. When the School sets the Prospectus Status for a course to be ‘approved’, that prospectus entry should be published to the Website.

7.4 Following publication, the School should ensure that these pages are kept up- to-date.

102 | P a g e

8. Compliance

8.1 AQD remains responsible for assuring that all University provision meets Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), and other QA requirements.

8.2 Compliance with the short course approval procedure is subject to periodic internal review by AQD on behalf of the University’s Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee (LTQ).

8.3 The results of internal audits will be reported through both the School and University SEC to identify areas for improvement, and areas of good practice that can be disseminated across the institution.

9. Further information

9.1 Further information may be obtained from:

• AQD Business Partner and/or the school short course co-ordinator

• Academic Quality and Development (AQD)

103 | P a g e

Short Course Flow Chart

• Course Teams decide whether a short course is credit or non-credit bearing • Complete short course proposal form (AQD043) and clearly

mention whether it is a credit or non- credit bearing • Inform the School Short Course Coordinator • For non-credit bearing, get approval from the School LTQC • For credit bearing, send module specification(s) to an appropriate

external advisor for assurance on the credit and level involved • Once the external's feedback is received, submit the proposal to School LTQC for

approval

School Short

Course coordinator

• Drive the approval process from the proposal stage to School LTQ approval • Record all short courses in the School Short Courses Log • Ensure all relevant departments are informed about the newly approved

short courses • Update relevant School Business Partner

School level

activities

• Provide advice and guidance to School Short Course • Coordinator from a quality assurance perspective • Check the short courses proposal form for any inaccuracy or non-

completion • Record the short courses in the AQD Short Courses Log • Forward the approved short courses' proposals to APC for notification

School Business Partner

• Provide advice and guidance to School Short Course • Coordinator from a quality assurance perspective • Check the short courses proposal form for any inaccuracy or non-

completion • Record the short courses in the AQD Short Courses Log • Forward the approved short courses' proposals to APC for

notification

APC Approval

104 | P a g e

Glossary

ABA Academic Business Administration. ABA is a professional service department within the University which provides administrative support to the Schools.

ALT Academic Liaison Tutor. ALT maintains relationship between the University and the collaborative partners and provide supports to the academics in the partner intuitions.

APC Academic Portfolio Committee. This Committee makes decision on the University’s academic portfolio management i.e. new course proposals in-house and collaborative, course suspensions, closures and title changes.

APP Access and Participation Plan. APP set out how higher education providers will improve equality of opportunity for underrepresented groups to access, succeed in and progress from higher education.

AQD Academic Quality and Development. The department at London Met with responsibility for supporting quality assurance and standards for courses.

AQMG Annual Quality Monitoring Group. AQMG oversee the quality of learning and teaching and the student experience at collaborative partners. It considers the operation of the partnership as a whole and the progress and development of each course.

CAN Cluster Annual Narrative. CAN report considers relevant Course Action Plans, performance against three years of relevant metrics, and minutes of the relevant Performance Enhancement Meeting.

CAP Course Action Plan. CAP provides oversight of a course. Course Leader maintains the CAP as a live account of enhancement actions taken.

CASS Sir John Cass School of Art, Architecture & Design

CEP Course Enhancement Plan. Where performance of a course has fallen below institutionally agreed benchmarks, the Performance Enhancement Meeting may require a CEP to be produced, then it will be considered at the School Learning, Teaching and Quality.

CLA Course Level Agreements. CLA outlines the University’s responsibilities to deliver a course to the students.

CMA Competition and Markets Authority. CMA is a non-ministerial department of the UK government. CMA works to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK.

COD Course Offer Database. COD records all the courses which London Met offers to applicants.

105 | P a g e

Common Practice(s)

These focus on enhancement activity. These are not mandatory in England but can be worked towards.

Conditions for Registration

They are minimum requirements that providers must meet in order to be/stay registered with the OfS. They demonstrate that the provider is able to offer high quality higher education to students.

Core Practice(s) These are mandatory requirements for all UK higher education providers, including London Met and represent effective ways of working that underpin the delivery of the Expectations and result in positive outcomes for students.

CTPSC Collaborative Taught Provision Sub-Committee. This is a sub-committee for the University’s Learning, Teaching and Quality committee. It has oversight of quality and standards of the University’s collaborative provisions.

DAP Degree Awarding Powers. These are powers bestowed on institutions to award degrees. There are different types of DAPs which stipulate what degrees can be awarded. London Met has the powers to award from levels 3 to 8.

DDIF Due Diligence Information Form.

EE External Examiner. The EE ensures that the University’s academic provisions meet nationally comparable standards and the quality of provision and the student experience is continuously reviewed and improved.

Expectations for Quality

These express the outcomes providers should achieve in setting and maintaining the standards of their awards, and for managing the quality of their provision. They are mandatory requirements for all UK providers including London Met.

FHEQ Framework for Higher Education Qualification. The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications of Degree-Awarding Bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

GSBL Guildhall School of Business and Law

HEP Higher Education Provider: Organizations that provide higher education such as a university.

ICMS Institutional Continuous Monitoring Statement.

IMoA Institutional Memorandum of Agreement: IMoA is a written legal document describing a cooperative relationship between two parties wishing to work together on a project or to meet an agreed upon objective. London Met has an IMoA with each of its collaborative partner institutions.

106 | P a g e

LTA Learning, Teaching and Assessment: LTA are different aspects of curriculum within the University.

LTAF

Learning Teaching and Assessment Framework: It was designed to take forward lessons and outcomes from PISO. It is underpinned by the principles of inclusivity and personalisation and provides a ‘top-level’ overview of key principles which inform the work London Met does to develop student achievement through good pedagogy.

LTQC Learning, Teaching and Quality committee. It is a sub-committee of the Academic Board. LTQ’s primary responsibility is the assurance of academic standards and oversight of quality assurance and the improvement of all London Met taught provision, including collaborative provision.

MAP Module Action Plan. MAP provides oversight of a module. Module Leader maintains the MAP as a live account of enhancement actions taken.

MEP Module Enhancement Plan. Where performance on a module has fallen below institutionally agreed benchmarks, the Performance Enhancement Meeting may require a MEP to be produced, then it will be considered at the School Learning, Teaching and Quality (LTQ).

MoU Memorandum of Understanding. MoU is a formal agreement between two or more parties. MOUs are not legally binding but they carry a degree of seriousness and mutual respect. London Met initially establish a MoU with its partner institutions.

NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement: NDA is a contract through which the parties agree not to disclose information covered by the agreement.

OIA Office of Independent Adjudicators. OIA is an independent body set up to review student complaints.

OfS Office for Students. They are an independent public body that reports to parliament through the Department for Education. They ensure that the requirements of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 are fulfilled.

PASS Peer-Assisted Student Success. It was primarily aimed at all L4 students but also includes L5 and L6 students in a different format. Its purpose is to boost academic success and cohort bonding of all participants, through access to peer-facilitated small-group sessions.

PEM Performance Enhancement Meeting. PEM are to provide Schools with the opportunity to assess the academic health of modules and courses, monitor performance of students and engage with Subject Standards Examiners regarding the fitness for purpose of, and ways of enhancing the course or module.

PISO Programme for Improving Student Outcomes. It is a cross-university programme which over the past two years (2017-19) has focused on tackling

107 | P a g e

institutional underperformance in retention, progression, attainment, and student satisfaction.

PSRBs Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. PSRBs are a diverse group of organisations that include professional bodies, regulators and those with statutory authority over a profession or a group of professionals.

QAA Quality Assurance Agency The designated quality body of the OfS. They conduct review of the higher education providers.

QSR Quality and Standards Review. This is the QAA review process started in August 2019. It replaced the Higher Education Review (HER) method.

Quality Code This document enables providers to understand what is expected of them and what to expect from each other. It sets out the Expectations, core and common practices.

Regulatory Framework

This states how the Office for Students intends to perform its various functions, and provides guidance for registered higher education providers on the ongoing conditions of registration.

QAA SBS QAA Subject Benchmark Statement. It describes the nature of study and the academic standards expected of graduates in specific subject areas.

SCDM School of Computing and Digital Media.

SCMS School Continuous Monitoring Statement. Head of School writes this report annually to include the health of the provision in the School identifying the impact of initiatives, issues and key actions arising and good practice highlighted in all the School’s monitoring reporting.

SCMS School Continuous Monitoring Statement (Collaborative Provision). Head of School writes this report annually with a focus on the School’s Collaborative provision. The SCMSC should include the health of the provision in the School identifying the impact of initiatives, issues and key actions arising and good practice highlighted in all the School’s monitoring reporting.

SELT Secure English Language Test. For certain visa applications i.e. Tier 4 applicants must demonstrate a certain level of English language ability. This can be through passing a test with a UK Home Office approved SELT provider.

SHSC School of Human Sciences.

SLCF Student Led Course Feedback. Annual survey where students get opportunity to provide feedback on each their courses.

SLMF Student Led Module Feedback. Annual survey where students get opportunity to provide feedback on each of their modules.

108 | P a g e

SLTQC

School Learning, Teaching and Quality Committees. This is the school level quality and standards committee.

SOC Standard Occupational Classification. It is a common classification of occupational information for the UK.

SSB Subject Standards Board. SSB are to confirm academic standards at course level, confirming that students have been fairly assessed, that assessment has been fairly marked and moderated and that London Met’s regulations have been followed.

SSE Subject Standards Examiners. SSE are responsible for modules which are assigned to them to examine and provide feedback on.

SSPR School of Social Professions.

SSSC School of Social Sciences.

TEF Teaching Excellence Framework. TEF is a national exercise, introduced by the government in England. It assesses excellence in teaching at universities and colleges, and how well they ensure excellent outcomes for their students in terms of graduate-level employment or further study.

UAB University Awards Board. UAB are to confirm the conferment of awards is in line with London Met’s regulations and conducted in accordance with good practice guidelines and participate in the monitoring of London Met’s assessment strategy and policies.

USO University Secretary Office. USO is responsible for all legal arrangement for the University.

School level activities