Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
6
Validated Centre Standards and
Quality Report
1. Introduction
1.1
The Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report (VCSQR) should provide
analysis and evaluation of Centre-wide strengths and areas for development rather
than repeating information directly from individual Course Standards and Quality
Reports (CSQRs).
1.2
This report should draw on a range of sources of evidence, such as:

Course Standards and Quality Reports;

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Board (PSRB) / Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) / Collaborative
Review reports;
External examiner and verifier reports;
Progression and achievement data


1.3
A template for the report is provided below.
September 2015
page
1
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
6
2. The Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
PART A: Centre Information
The purpose of this section is to provide context for readers who are unfamiliar with the
Centre and its provision.
Brief overview
of the Centre
 Size and nature of the Institution
 Size of provision delivered in collaboration with NTU
List of courses considered in the VCSQR (for each Course the following
information should be provided):
Award and
Title
Mode(s) of
study
Site of delivery
(if applicable)
Original
course
approval date
Date of last
review
BA (Hons)
Quality
Assurance
Full Time
Nottingham
Sept.2008
August 2011
Part Time
London
Sign off
process:
Please provide the Centre ‘sign off’ process for the VCSQR, including
date of sign off:
For example: The VCSQR was considered at the Centre’s Academic
Board and approved on 31 January 2015.
Academic
session
reported on:
September 2015
page
2
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
6
PART B:
Executive Summary:
The purpose of the summary is to draw the reader’s
attention to key strengths and issues reported in the
document.
For example, these may be significant developments or
initiatives worthy of note, concerns about aspects of
provision, or specific challenges associated with
University or Centre systems that have been thought to
compromise the quality of the courses being
provisioned.
Reflection on currency and
subject health:
This section requires the Centre to confirm that its
provision as a whole remains current. This section will
draw on a range of possible evidence presented in
CSQRs, PSRB or QAA reports and institutional or course
approval reports.
The Centre should take a strategic overview of its
provision and evaluate how the evidence demonstrates
currency and subject health. It should not repeat what
is already provided in CSQRs.
Evidence may include, for example:
 staff development activity, consultancy, scholarship and the related
impact upon the curriculum;
 institutional or course collaborative review;
 PSRB accreditation;
 staff research and its impact on the curriculum;
 learning resources.
Developments and initiatives
Ref. rolling
action plan
Here the Centre reports on significant developments or
initiatives which have taken place during the reporting
year and that will enhance its provision. This should
look at Centre-level initiatives, and should not repeat
what is already provided in CSQRs.
For example, the Centre should reflect on developments in the size and
nature of provision, including approval of new courses or delivery sites, and
consider the impact this may have. The report should also consider
initiatives that have led to, or have the potential to lead to, practice or
process enhancements which may be shareable across courses or with NTU.
Ref. rolling
action plan
Developments might include:
 assessment and feedback initiatives;
 research initiatives;
 developments in student academic support;
 blended or E-Learning initiatives.
Evidence for this section may be drawn from:
 Centre-wide policies and initiatives;
 CSQRs;
 approval and review reports;
 external examiner reports;
 verifier reports.
September 2015
page
3
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
Consideration of relationship
with Nottingham Trent
University:
This section should evaluate the relationship between
the Centre and the University.
It should reflect on operational strengths and areas for development
relating to the relationship such as:
 verifier arrangements;
 Collaborative Partnerships Office – Validation Service relationship;
 Centre for Academic Development and Quality (CADQ) iterative and
approval processes;
 links to Academic Schools and Departments at NTU (if appropriate);
 staff development provided by or in collaboration with NTU;
 annual reporting.
Consideration of issues
relating to Professional,
Statutory and Regulatory
Bodies and other external
agencies:
Ref. rolling
action plan
This section should only be completed by Centres with
multiple delivery sites and should evaluate the quality of
provision across sites.
The following headings should be used to report on this area:
 The parity of student experience across sites
 Any strengths or areas for development in relation to the management of
delivery across sites
 Sharing of good practice across sites
 Comparisons of student achievement and progression across sites
 Any other areas to note
September 2015
Ref. rolling
action plan
The Centre should provide a synopsis of the salient
issues in respect of engagements with PSRBs and other
external agencies, arising out of the analysis of CSQRs.
The synopsis should not repeat individual course relationships, but should
evaluate the Centre’s overall standing with respect to these outside
agencies through its courses. The report might for example reflect on the
outcomes of national quality audit.
Centres with multiple
delivery sites:
6
Ref. rolling
action plan
page
4
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
6
PART C:
Consideration of external
examiner reports:
This section serves to assure the Centre that standards
are being maintained and that issues raised by external
examiners are being reflected or acted upon across the
provision as a whole.
The report should take a strategic overview of standards at the Centre from
evidence provided in external examiner reports and should not repeat what
is written in the CSQRs. The Centre should draw out any common themes
arising from external examiner reports in relation to strengths and issues
and consider any action which needs to be taken at the institutional level.
Ref. rolling
action plan
The report should also consider any negative responses to any of the
questions in the reports (i.e. answered ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’). Where there
are negative responses the Centre should consider whether course teams
have responded appropriately and whether any action is required at the
institutional level. The Centre should also consider whether issues raised by
external examiners are being appropriately responded to at the course
level.
Evidence for this section should be drawn from:
 external examiner reports
 CSQRs
 quantitative data relating to yes/no responses
PART D:
Consideration of verifier
reports:
A.
This section serves to assure the Centre that standards
and subject health across the provision are being
maintained, and that issues raised by verifiers are being
reflected or acted upon.
The report should take a strategic overview of standards at the Centre from
evidence provided in verifier reports, not repeating what has been written in
CSQRs. The Centre should evaluate any common themes arising from
verifier reports across the provision as a whole.
Ref. rolling
action plan
The report should consider whether actions raised by verifiers are being
appropriately addressed at the course level. Evidence for this section
should be drawn from verifiers reports and CSQRs.
September 2015
page
5
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS
6
PART E:
Consideration of student
data:
This section requires the Centre to reflect on data
relating to:
 enrolments;
 student progression;
 student achievement;

graduate destinations.
Data should be provided as appendices using the templates provided by
NTU. Data should be provided for whole groups of courses rather than on a
course by course basis. For example, total progression figures for all three
year undergraduate courses at the Centre. Different types of courses
should be reported separately, for example, Bachelors, Foundation degrees,
postgraduate.
Ref. rolling
action plan
Reflections should be reported and evaluated with respect to patterns and
trends across the whole provision over the previous three years.
Any actions arising from analysis of data trends should be incorporated into
the Centre-wide rolling action plan.
The questions set out below are designed to aid the Centre in analysing
patterns and trends which are highlighted by the data. These questions are
not exhaustive, and Centres may report on additional areas. This section
should be presented as a narrative. Yes / no responses to these questions
are not acceptable.
Enrolment (using data from the total number of students column in
the progression data table)




Have enrolments across the Centre remained stable over the last three
years? If not why might this be the case? Are there any implications of
this?
Is there any type of provision, such as bachelor’s or master’s which is
recruiting better or worse than other types? If so, why might this be the
case? Are there any implications of this?
Are any enrolment trends in line with the sector more generally? If not is
there a reason why this might be the case?
On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
Progression (using data from the progression table)




Are the patterns of progression similar across the last three years? If
they are different, why might this be the case? Are there any
implications of this?
Does the data suggest a change in progression rates that concerns the
Centre?
Is progression better or worse on any one type of provision such as
bachelor’s or master’s? Is so, why might this be the case?
On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
Achievement (Using data from the achievement table)


Are percentages of students in each classification similar across the last
three years? If they are different, why might this be the case? Are
there any implications of this?
Does the data suggest a change that concerns the Centre?
September 2015
page
6
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
QHS VS

6
On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
Graduate destinations



Are patterns of graduate destinations similar across the last three years?
If they are different, why might this be the case? Are there any
implications of this?
Does the data suggest a change that concerns the Centre?
On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
September 2015
page
7
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
Validated Centre Standards and Quality Report
VS
6
3. Rolling Action Plan
An action plan should be included indicating the actions to be taken, the dates for completion, and the person or group responsible for taking
that action or anticipated enhancement forward.
The Centre should firstly report on progress made with the previous year’s action plan and note any actions which are incomplete or are
ongoing. Where actions are ongoing they should be incorporated into the action plan for the coming year. The action plan should explicitly
state where actions are rolled over from the previous plan.
All actions should be cross-referenced to the main body of the report and the relevant CSQR if applicable. Actions should be specific, have final
dates for completion rather than be ‘ongoing’ and should specify the person, group or committee responsible for taking the action forward.
No.
Action Point
Section in
CSQR:
Date to be
completed:
To be
completed
by:
Cross Reference
(CSQR)
1.
Undertake a review of the allocation of learning
resources across the provision to ensure parity of
student access. Make any necessary amendments to
allocations arising from the review.
C1.3
Review to be
completed 31
March 2015
Senior
Management
Team in
consultation
with staff and
students
Broadcast Media
September 2015
Re-allocation of
resources to be
completed by
June 2016
Media
Journalism
page
8