University of Bradford
Periodic review – operational guide for academic Schools
The conduct of periodic review is coordinated by the Academic Standards and Support Unit
(ASSU). Information and guidance are available from Academic Standards Advisers (ASAs) in
ASSU, and also from the School's Associate Dean(s), Learning and Teaching.
Steps 4, 5 and 6 – outcomes, actions and followup
Outcomes
1.
The main outputs from periodic review are a structured report centred on the
headings in the Critical Appraisal and a checklist of any actions identified for the
School to undertake.
The Academic Standards Adviser will send a copy of the report of the review
meeting to the Programme Leader by email, soon after the event. The report will:
 record the main points of the panel’s discussions with students,
stakeholders and the Programme Team
 include a full list of any actions that the review panel has asked the
School to undertake to assure or enhance quality and standards
A copy of the report will also be sent to the students and stakeholders who
attended the review so that they are aware of the outcome.
As periodic review is no longer required to re-approve continuing programmes,
and is not an approval event for new or revised programmes, actions identified
at periodic review are not “conditions” that must be met in order to secure
(re)approval of the provision.
2.
Actions are categorised as:
Essential: referred to LTC where there are doubts about the continuing viability of a
programme
Desirable: need attention in order to assure the continued maintenance of quality
and standards
Advisable: helpful in enhancing the quality and standards of the provision
3.
Where there are doubts about the continuing viability of a programme, the review
panel’s concerns must be reported to the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) for
its immediate consideration. LTC will determine how “essential” matters are to be
dealt with.
If concerns emerge in periodic review about any aspect of the provision that the
panel believes may threaten the viability of a programme, these will be referred
to LTC by submission of the review report. CART will not make
recommendations on whether the programme should continue to be delivered;
the decision on how to proceed will rest with LTC.
Actions
August 2009
4.
An action plan must be drawn up in the School to address “desirable” and “advisable”
actions.
There is no requirement for this plan to be submitted for CART approval; it is an
internal matter for the School to draw up and implement the plan.
5.
The ADLT (or her/his nominee) should work with the Programme Management Team
to support the implementation of the action plan.
Followup
6.
The CART Chair and the Academic Standards Adviser will hold a follow-up meeting in
the School 12 months after the review to check progress on the action plan.
The Academic Standards Adviser will contact the School to arrange this meeting.
In approving the new framework for periodic review, it was agreed that there should be
opportunities for participants to comment on the review itself. Further work will be done to
set up a meaningful but undemanding way of monitoring and improving periodic review.
New and revised programmes
Revisions to existing provision, or new programme proposals, will not be considered for
approval at periodic review. The Action Plan that accompanies the Critical Appraisal outlines
how the Programme Team wishes to develop the provision in the future, and the review
panel is likely to have made suggestions for further improvement.
Therefore, following periodic review, Programme Teams are in a position to draw up or
finalise detailed proposals for new or revised programmes, which will be considered
through the usual approval process. Full information about the approval of new and revised
programmes is provided in the guide to programme approval.
Other sections of this guide cover:



Timing and scope of the review
Preparation, documents and participants
The review event
August 2009