Agenda for the Combined Partnership and Programme Review with
[Name of Partner]
[Date and Venue]
This agenda and timings should be customised where needed, however the time indicated for
each meeting is likely to be the minimum time that should be allocated and additional time
should be added if necessary. The topics suggested for discussion are indicative.
The following lists of topics are only Indicative and not exhaustive.
1.
Chair’s Meeting/*(Pre-)Meeting of Panel
To identify key issues for the event and confirm agenda for each review
NB This meeting takes place in advance of the main event and may be conducted
virtually with the whole Panel, depending upon the issues and timing.
2.
Private Meeting of the Panel (1 hour) to discuss main issues, concerns and lines of
questioning related to one or more of the following:

















Strategic issues
Due diligence
Management of the relationship between Partner and University
Resources (both virtual and physical)
Student support
Management of quality and standards
Operational programme management between Partner and University
Student outcomes and student support
Enhancement
Market and student numbers
Recruitment and Admissions
Staffing, staff development and scholarly activity
Learning, teaching and assessment strategies
Assessment and feedback arrangements
Student engagement and feedback on the student experience
Management of academic standards and quality
Academic Regulations1
1
For Programmes designated as leading to Joint, Dual or Multiple Awards, the Panel must review the
regulations proposed. Any derogation from the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Awards
will need to be presented to Academic Council for ratification as a standard condition of approval.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P6b (October 2015)
page 1
PLUS for validated programmes only:



Rationale and aims of the programme
Programme design and curriculum
Greenwich Graduate Attributes
Partner Review
3.
Meeting with Partner Senior Management Team and Senior University
Representative(s) (1 hour) to discuss





4.
The collaborative relationship and the strategic direction of the partnership
Matters of Due Diligence, including financial stability
Legal, socio-cultural and political underpinnings of the partnership
Position of the portfolio of programmes in the market (e.g. opportunity for growth
or need for consolidation), Marketing and Publicity
Resource bases supporting the partnership e.g.: partner staffing and staff
development including scholarly activity, University materials and support
resources, link tutor support
Overview of Learning Resources:




Libraries, provision of textbooks
IT provision e.g. Internet speed, server capacity, wireless availability, software
provision, security software, helpdesk support, virtual learning environment,
plagiarism detection software, electronic submission and marking systems
Teaching accommodation e.g. any specialist laboratory or studio provision)
Social learning areas, refectories etc.
NB if the event is in situ, this will be accomplished through a guided tour of facilities; if
the event is undertaken through video conferencing, the key aspects listed above should
be explicitly discussed in a new Resource Visit Report completed by the Link Tutor(s),
which must be included as Appendix One of the submission document.
6.
Meeting with University Link Tutor(s) / Faculty Representatives, and Partner
Managers and Administrators (30 minutes) to discuss:



7.
Quality assurance (compliance with procedures, and timeliness of, procedures)
Any anomalous performance or outcomes highlighted by analysis of the statistics
Quality of partnership working, communication between the University and (insert
partner name)
Meeting of panel to determine the outcome of the Partnership Review event

Panels will need to ensure that due consideration is given both to the issues specific
to the partnership as a whole and to programme-level issues, and these must be
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P6b (October 2015)
page 2
clearly separated, even though the Critical Appraisal by the Partner will have
presented the relevant information in a way which is integrated. Feedback will also
need to be given on each of these sets of issues separately, and each can be subject
to a separate set of conditions and requirements.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY:
Programme Review
8.
Meeting with Students – and where possible, alumni – (1 hour) to discuss their
learning experience(s)
•
•
•
9.
Student support systems: Induction, administrative support teams, accommodation
support, Extenuating Circumstances, study skills, language use and plagiarism,
support systems, employability support and other support
Welfare support: counselling and healthcare arrangements, personal tutor/pastoral
care
Student engagement systems, student representation on courses and programmes
and other institutional committees
Meeting with Link Tutor(s), Faculty Managers, Programme Leaders and
Administrators to discuss:








Learning, teaching and assessment strategies
Issues raised by students
Market and entry requirements
Staff development
Scholarly activity
Feedback to students
Analysis of statistics
Reason for any curriculum/assessment changes
10.
Optional Meeting with Senior Management/Link Tutor(s), Programme Leaders and
Administrators to consider any outstanding issues
11.
Meeting of panel to determine the outcome of the Programme Review event
As was noted above, Panels will need to ensure that due consideration is given both
to the issues specific to the partnership as a whole and to programme-level issues.
Each can be subject to a separate set of conditions and requirements, and formal
feedback (in any subsequent letter and report) will also need to be given on each of
these sets of issues separately.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P6b (October 2015)
page 3
12.
Report back to Partner and University team
Feedback on the partnership should not take the form of a declaration of firm
decisions by the Panel, but should identify the positive features of the partnership
and elements of good practice and indicate any remaining issues or concerns,
outlining any conditions and requirements to be met, and undertaking to confirm
this in a subsequent letter, to be followed by a more detailed report. Conditions and
requirements can relate to either or both sides in the partnership, and Faculty and
Partner should be working together on these.
The Partner will need to be made aware by the Chair of the University procedures
involved, with the recommendation to committee and the need for Academic
Council endorsement, which will then allow for the drafting and signature of a new
Memorandum of Agreement.
Feedback on the programme(s) should also be presented by the Chair in terms of
any specific conditions and/or requirements to be met. The Chair should indicate
that this will also be confirmed in the subsequent letter and report.
Quality Assurance Handbook, Appendix P6b (October 2015)
page 4