Quality Handbook
AQH-I1B1 Annual Monitoring - Programme
Operational Review
Version 9.0 June 2015
SECTION B1 - ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION
- PROGRAMME OPERATIONAL REVIEW
1.
Principles
Responsibility for the quality of the programme and of the student experience is shared
between the relevant Faculty and central services led by Academic Services. Responsibility
for the strategic development of partnerships rests at university level with Marketing and
Recruitment Services (MAR) and at faculty level with the Associate Dean’s (ADs)
(Recruitment and Development) and the Deans. There is inevitably and rightly overlap
between these two areas of responsibility.
A distinction needs to be made between reviewing the programme and reviewing the
partner. Programme review in a collaborative context ensures that comparable quality and
standards of provision are maintained but also needs to feed into the wider review of the
programme which may also be taught on-campus and/or at other sites. Partner review
considers higher-level issues around the management and development of the partnership.
Failure by a partner organisation to deliver annual monitoring reports on the programme puts
the management of the quality and standards of the provision at risk and constitutes a
breach of the partnership agreement. In such a case the partner should be informed of the
seriousness of the situation using a series of escalating letters (see AQH-I1-10).
Each Faculty should clearly designate responsibility for liaison with a partner organisation.
There should be:
 a Centre Leader or Faculty Partnership Leader (depending on the type of college) who
is responsible for oversight of the partnership across all programmes offered in
collaboration with the Faculty. The role requires liaison with the Programme Leaders to
identify and manage wider problems with the partnership as a whole and to ensure
consistency of approach between programmes;
 a Programme Leader (who may also be a Centre Leader; the Faculty Partnership
Leader will also be a Centre Leader) who is responsible for ensuring comparability in
the academic experience across all delivery sites for the programme. He/she should be
in contact with the relevant Centre Leader(s) / Faculty Partnership Leader(s) and with
the partner.
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 1 of 6
Details of the roles are given in AQH-I1-4 (for Centre Leaders) and AQH-I1-19 (for Faculty
Partnership Leaders).
2.
Annual Monitoring of the Provision
a)
Annual Centre Leader visits
Two visits must be made to the partner each year by the Centre Leader for all models of
collaboration. Where there are multiple delivery sites all must be visited once a year,
although this may be delegated to other colleagues, eg programme leaders, who may also
be visiting the partner. This must include:
 a meeting with students to elicit feedback on their experiences, especially teaching,
learning, assessment, changes to the curriculum, learning resources, academic
support and personal support;
 a meeting with staff teaching on the programmes to include discussion of staff
development activities and needs, changes to the programme(s) and student
achievement. Any concerns about liaison between the partner and Sunderland
should be discussed;
 in overseas partners and UK private colleges (which are not subject to Quality
Assurance Agency and OfSted review) peer observation of teaching to cover all staff
and modes of teaching within an agreed schedule of not more than three years;
 a review of relevant learning resources;
 a review of processes for the security of assessment;
 where timing permits, involvement in induction of new students and/or staff;
 a review of information given to students before and after entry (recruitment
literature, handbooks etc).
A written report on the visit must be produced, using the template in AQH-I1-5 and circulated
as indicated on the template.
Note: external examiners are not required to visit partner organisations unless they need to
do so to moderate work, assess practical sessions, performances, exhibitions etc, or hold
vivas. They are asked to make comments on the performance of students at different sites
where applicable and should be provided with the data which allows them to do this.
b)
Visits to regional Further Education (FE) colleges
All Programme Leaders are expected to have regular contact with, including visits to,
regional FE Colleges where their programmes are delivered. This will also apply to the
Faculty Partnership Leaders as Programme Leaders. No additional visits are required in
respect of the Faculty Partnership Leader role although they may be made if necessary.
c)
Annual Review of the Programme
Validation Model: the partner will be required to monitor the programme using the
University’s standard annual review procedures and forms and to submit the documentation
to the Faculty responsible on the same time-scale as Programme Studies Boards submit
their reports.
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 2 of 6
Joint Franchise models: the Faculty is responsible for monitoring the programme through
the appropriate Programme Studies Board in the usual way. Discussion of the programme
should take account of any trends and differences between delivery sites and partners and
this should be reflected in the final review documentation submitted to the Faculty. This
should be informed by the following reporting process.
Note on non-standard years: there is an inevitable tension between wishing to review the
programme at the end of each cohort of students and needing to bring together the annual
reports on all programmes in a portfolio at a given point in the year. Where programmes do
not follow the standard academic year, reports should draw on the latest data available so
that a gathered field of programme reports can be considered together as part of a coherent
annual review process involving on-campus as well as off-campus provision. This will make
it possible to identify strategic or thematic issues as well as to programme-specific matters. If
appropriate it may be preferable to look at data for split cohorts (e.g. admissions data for one
group and degree classification data for another).
Stage 1: Partner Report on the Programme(s)
By the end of July the partner submits an annual review for each subject area or programme
as required by the Faculty to the Faculty Quality Officer who passes it on to the relevant
Centre Leader / Faculty Partnership Leader and Programme Leader(s). This should be
produced by the main contact for the subject area (who liaises with the centre leader at
Sunderland). The report should use the template in AQH-I1-7 and cover:
Section 1: core information


Centre, subject area, programmes covered, name and position of person
submitting the report, academic year covered
the partnership arrangement in general for the subject area
 communication and information;
 quality management processes;
 academic standards;
 staff development.
Section 2: a report on each programme individually evaluating the quality of the student
experience and academic standards and noting good practice, concerns and action
points around






teaching and learning;
assessment;
curriculum content;
learning resources;
student support;
student achievement (including progression, completion, failure rates,
withdrawals, employment / further study).
Section 3: responses to reports:
 any subject-specific external review reports (e.g. professional body
accreditation) which have been received by the partner during the year
should be appended and the actions to be taken in response listed;
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 3 of 6
 actions taken in response to the Centre Leader’s / Faculty Partnership
Leader’s annual report should be listed.
Stage 2: Centre Leader response
By the end of October the Sunderland Centre Leader:
 discusses the report with the relevant programme leader(s) to identify any further
issues or good practice;
 includes a response to the report in his/her annual report (which contains a
record of issues raised in his/her visits) (see AQH-I1-5). This should comment on
the issues raised, and add other issues which have not been included by the
partner;
 forwards the report to:
 the Associate Dean (AD) (Student Experience)
 the Faculty Quality Officer (FQO)
 the relevant Programme Leader(s) to take to the Programme Board of
Studies and feed into annual review of the programme
 the partner college.
Stage 2: Faculty Partnership Leader response
During October the Sunderland Faculty Partnership Leader:
 discusses the report with the relevant Programme Leader(s) to identify any
further issues or good practice;
 finalises an annual report which includes a response to the issues raised by the
partner (see AQH-I1-20);
 forwards the report to:
 the Associate Dean (AD) (Student Experience)
 the Faculty Quality Officer (FQO)
 the relevant Programme Leader(s) to take to the Programme Board of
Studies and feed into annual review of the programme
 the partner college.
Stage 3: Faculty report
By the end of March the Associate Dean (AD) (Student Experience) oversees the review
all the Centre Leader and Faculty Partnership Leader reports for the Faculty and the
preparation of a brief high-level report using AQH-I1-8.
This informs a university-wide report by the Academic Services Collaborative Provision
Manager which will be presented to ADC in May. This will identify key issues for specific
partners and for collaborative provision as a whole in the University. ADC will report to
Academic Board and where applicable ask Quality Management Sub Committee
(QMSC) to progress operational developments.
d)
Publicity and other information for students
Responsibility for approving the publicity of partner colleges rests with the central Marketing
and Recruitment Service (for regional FECs) and with faculty marketing teams for all other
colleges. Information for students, such as handbooks, will often be seen by Programme
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 4 of 6
Leaders. However Centre Leaders and Faculty Partnership Leaders, as well as other
Programme Leaders (especially for regional FECs) have a particular opportunity to note
publicity and other materials in the course of their interactions with the colleges. They should
draw inaccuracies and omissions to the attention of the partner organisation or refer them to
an appropriate marketing team. Advice on the use of the University’s name and logo can be
obtained from Marketing and Recruitment.
A ‘first offence’ should be drawn to the attention of the partner, with copies of
correspondence kept in the Faculty or Service Office. If the offence is severe or repeated
this should be reported to the Director of Marketing and Recruitment (MAR). If in doubt
please seek advice from the Director of Marketing and Recruitment (MAR) before sending
any communication. A standard letter / email format should be used, see AQH-I1-6.
If legal advice is required this will be sought by the Director of Marketing and Recruitment
(MAR) or his/her nominee. Repeated and/or serious breaches of the approval process may
lead to termination of the agreement.
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 5 of 6
VERSION HISTORY
Version
Occasion of Change
Change author
Modifications made
S Sutcliffe
Date of
modification
September 2008
1.0
4.0
Original placed in
Academic Quality
Handbook
Implementation of the
University’s new
collaborative processes
for September 2009
Operational review July
2010
Updating
M Young
August 2009
Updated document number.
B Ollerenshaw
September 2010
S Robertson
August 2011
Amending SRBP to MAR
5.0
Changes to Roles
S Patience
October 2012
Update of process with updated roles.
6.0
A Carlton
August 2013
Clarification of acronyms
S Patience
December 2013
8.0
Annual review of
Academic Quality
Handbook
Change of report title
name
Review
J Greenlees
November 2014
9.0
Committee restructure
S Sutcliffe
June 2015
ADSE annual report renamed Faculty
annual report.
Revised submission date for Faculty
annual report
Academic Experience Committee
replaced by Academic Development
Committee
2.0
3.0
7.0
Document1 V9 June 2015
Page 6 of 6