Collaborative Programmes – quality assurance guidelines
1.
Purpose
1.1
To set out minimum School expectations about the quality assurance arrangements for
collaborative programmes.
2.
Background
2.1
The Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee (TLAC) conducts reviews of the
School’s collaborative programmes. Each programme is reviewed every five years. During
the 2010/11 round of reviews, Departments the review team was reviewing expressed
concerns that the School offered insufficient guidance on the quality assurance
arrangements it expected its collaborative programmes to have in place. This guidance
note seeks to address that concern.
3.
Existing requirements
3.1
The Academic Board’s ‘Towards a strategy for managing academic standards and quality’
states that quality assurance “belongs at the Departmental level, with the responsibilities
that this entails (including a need for mechanisms to resolve short-term breakdowns and to
gather and use regular feedback on courses and programmes)”.
3.2
This requirement means that Departments should have in place certain minimum quality
assurance procedures. The School has intentionally avoided being over-prescriptive in this
area: it recognises that its Departments’ different cultures and histories make it appropriate
for them to approach the detailed operation of quality assurance in ways that best suit their
needs.
3.3
However, while it is for Departments to determine the operational detail of their
arrangements, the School expects that these local arrangements will at least have the
following features:

Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs) for all students that meet regularly, with minutes
of meetings produced and circulated;

Departmental Staff meetings that involve all staff, meet at least three times per academic
year and consider information from other committees that might be in place. Minutes should
also be produced;

Teaching Committee that involves appropriate members of staff, meets regularly each
academic session and considers all aspects of Departmental teaching such as new
programme/course proposals, programme/course monitoring and/or review. Minutes should
also be produced;

A system of annual course monitoring and periodic programme review;

A system for considering course and degree results annually;

A system for considering student survey scores annually;

A system for considering external examiner reports, and acting on them, on an annual
basis.
4.
Mapping existing requirements to collaborative provision
1
4.1
Departmental quality assurance arrangements should be applied – flexibly and
proportionately where appropriate – to collaborative provision. This will ensure equivalent
quality and academic standards across collaborative and core provision; and that
collaborative programme issues are not dealt with in isolation. For example, a Department
will normally consider the external examiner reports and performance data relating to
courses that contribute to a collaborative programme by the same procedure and at the
same time as it considers its other provision.
4.2
The bullet points below suggest how existing Departmental quality assurance
arrangements can be applied to collaborative programmes.

The programme will have its own SSLC, or will nominate a student representative, or
representatives, to attend the appropriate SSLC within the Department;

The Programme Director will attend Departmental staff meetings, and represent the
interests and concerns of the programme as appropriate;

The Programme Director or a deputy will attend Teaching Committee meetings (or keep
informed about its activity) to note whether proposed amendment or enhancement to
courses contributing to the collaborative programme might affect the programme’s aims,
delivery or learning outcomes; or whether changes in course content might affect the
intellectual complementarity between the ‘LSE year’ and the year at the partner institution;

In line with the School’s main taught provision, a Department will review its collaborative
programmes every three to five years, and annually monitor the courses that contribute to
the programme (i.e. those courses that fall under its purview).
Annual monitoring of the programme will be based on the review and analysis of a range of
data, such as student feedback (e.g. from the SSLC); student progression and performance
(i.e. collaborative student performance versus ‘LSE only’ student performance); external
examiner reports and responses to them; minutes of the Joint Programme Committee
meetings (see section 5, below); graduate destination data, etc. The precise data set used
in annual monitoring is to be determined by the Department at its discretion.
Annual monitoring should also include a review of the information made available to
students about the programme by both institutions, e.g. about the aims of the programme;
the academic complementarity – and differences – between years one and two; the
different academic cultures, traditions and approaches at each institution; course
availability; student support; accommodation; etc.
The Department will also conduct deeper periodic reviews of the programme (i.e. every
three to five years, analysing the information above on a cumulative basis, and in light of
developments in the discipline). The aim will be to determine the continuing validity and
currency of the programme; and the continuing effectiveness of the curriculum and
assessment in relation to learning outcomes.
The Joint Programme Committees (JPCs) will be responsible for overseeing this monitoring
and review activity, not least in determining the boundaries of different components of
monitoring and review (e.g. external examiner reports would apply to the LSE year only, but
student performance data and student feedback could apply across the programme as a
whole). The JPC will report its findings annually to the academic Departments responsible
for the programme at each institution.

Departments will normally consider the course results for students on collaborative
programmes alongside the results for ‘LSE only’ students on the same courses, e.g. at the
relevant sub-board of examiners meeting, Departmental Staff meeting, Teaching
Committee meeting or special body appointed for the purpose. The Joint Programme
2
Committee will also annually consider collaborative programme results. The aim here is to
identify any disparity in performance between students on the collaborative programme and
students on the Department’s other programmes; to consider if steps are necessary to
address any disparity; to consider (in the case of double degrees) whether the programme
is providing ‘value added’, i.e. is something more than two one-year programmes running
concurrently; and to report these findings and any proposals to the Department.

The Department’s procedure for considering annual survey scores will identify any
instances of anomalous scores on shared courses (i.e. where collaborative programme
students and ‘LSE only’ programme students sit the same courses), as set against the
Departments ‘LSE only’ courses. For example, if courses taken by both collaborative
programme and ‘LSE only’ students achieve significantly higher/lower survey scores than
courses taken by ‘LSE only’ students, the Department – through the JPC – should consider
the possible causes. Such scores will only signal the need for further investigation, and will
not of themselves indicate that there are problems with the course.

The JPC will consider relevant external examiner reports.
5.
Joint Programme Committee
5.1
Every collaborative programme at the School is underpinned by a written agreement and
set of operational procedures. These set out the School’s and its partners’ mutual
obligations. All written agreements require the programme in question to put in place a
Joint Programme Committee.
5.2
A Joint Programme Committee is the only additional quality assurance mechanism for
collaborative programmes. It is the body responsible for overseeing most of the quality
assurance arrangements for the programme (e.g. monitoring and review; consideration of
student feedback and performance data, etc).
5.3
The membership of the JPC should include at least two representatives from both (all)
partnership institutions, including each institution’s Programme Director and the relevant
Head of Departments or equivalent. Others – such as Masters’ Students Tutor or
equivalent, Course Managers (i.e. academics responsible for indic, and other relevant
contributors to the programme – may be called upon by the Committee for their support as
and when necessary. The exact membership is a matter for the Department and its
partner(s) to determine.
5.4
Likewise, it is for the JPC to determine its own terms of reference, as best supports the
management and delivery of the programme. Sample JPC terms of reference might
include:
-
To oversee and assure the academic standards and content of the programme;
To oversee the programme’s compliance with each institutions’ regulations on behalf of
the relevant academic Departments, to which the JPC is accountable;
To assure the accuracy of published programme information, and to monitor and revise
that information as necessary;
To consider course and programme results, including in respect of progression between
years 1 and 2, and pass (including by class) and failure rates;
To ensure that student feedback is solicited annually, and to consider and – where
necessary – to act on it;
To monitor annually the student experience of the programme and its courses during the
previous year and – where necessary – propose changes to them;
To review annually the Operational Procedures in consultation with appropriate academic
and administrative colleagues at both Institutions and agree changes to them in order to
ensure the smooth running of the Programme;
3
-
5.5
To update and agree annually the lists of the courses to be available at each Institution in the
next academic year. These lists will appear on the official website(s) for the Programme.
Day-to-day management of the programme is normally delegated to the Programme
Directors. Delegated responsibilities can include: assessing applications and determining
admission; reviewing student progression and performance; considering and proposing
programme amendments (including course modifications and new course options) to the
JPC, for onward transmittal to the Department and – where necessary – to the appropriate
institutional bodies; reviewing programme-specific survey results; and agreeing and
updating published information about the programme. Summary reports of delegated
activity should be made to formal JPC meetings.
TQARO and APU
October 2011
4