Academic Quality Framework Chapter 15

Introduction to Collaborative Provision

1. Northeastern University London (the University) enters into partnerships that are conducive to meeting its strategic objectives.
2. This chapter of the Academic Quality Framework (AQF) outlines the principles for engaging in collaborative provision with external partners and the processes for the approval and management of this.

Definitions of Collaborative Provision

3. The UK Quality Code on Partnerships, defines a Partnership as:

“An arrangement between two or more organisations to deliver aspects of teaching, learning, assessment and student support.”

and states:

“The awarding organisation will be accountable for assuring the overall quality and academic standards of the provision, regardless of the type of partnership.”

4. For the purposes of this document, the term ‘partner institution’ is used to describe organisations that are partners with the University in all types of collaborative provision.

Collaborative Provision Agreement

5. Collaborative programmes of study leading to awards from the University are subject to the University’s AQF, except in so far as these may be varied in a signed Collaborative Provision Agreement (CPA).
6. The CPA outlines the rights and responsibilities of the parties and will detail all other such matters as are considered appropriate for the effective management of the collaborative provision in question.
7. Only the Chief Executive Officer or nominee (normally a member of the Executive Committee) may enter into a collaborative arrangement, whether in the form of a CPA or non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of the University or any of its constituent Faculties.
8. No collaborative arrangement may commence prior to the signing by all parties of an appropriate CPA or MOU agreement.
9. The development and provision of the appropriate forms of partnership agreement remain the responsibility of the Registrar. Normally, only those agreements (including MOUs and CPAs) or other relevant legal contracts provided by the Quality Team will be recognised as authorised by the University. Agreements provided by partners may be subject to legal scrutiny prior to acceptance.
10. Should the proposing Faculty believe that, prior to the completion of the partner institution approval stage, it would be appropriate to provide some assurance of the University’s intent with regard to developing the partnership, the Faculty may request that the University issue a Letter of Intent to their counterpart(s), outlining the intention of the University to further investigate the potential collaboration.
11. A copy of the signed agreement is retained by the Quality Team.
12. The nature of the formal agreement differs depending on the type of collaboration. The Quality Team can advise how an agreement should be tailored to fit the specific partnership.
13. In the context of employer responsive provision, the University must specify in the agreement the obligations it has to those students registered on a collaborative programme of study who are employees of the partner institution in the event that their employment with the partner institution is terminated.
14. CPA is time-limited and subject to review after a specific period. For more information, please refer to the Periodic Provider Review.
15. Where the arrangements for new Collaborative Academic Centres have been approved, the collaboration will be subject to a legally binding CPA.

Types and Management of Collaborative Provision

Validated Institutions

16. A validated institution is an institution that has received approval from the University to offer programmes devised, delivered and assessed by the validated institution but approved by the University for University credit and academic award. The University is responsible for the standards of such awards and for the quality of the learning opportunities provided to the students on these programmes. Accordingly, approved programmes of study delivered by validated institutions are subject to the University’s AQF. 
17. Although the awarding institution, the University, delegates a number of responsibilities to the validated institution, including the arrangements for admissions, teaching, assessment, learning resources and other services, the University monitors the quality of this provision through its arrangements for ongoing liaison and the set procedures for annual monitoring and reporting, and periodic review. The appointment of internal and external examiners remains the prerogative of the University.

Management of Validated Institutions

18. All types of award bearing collaborative programmes of study, except for those delivered by a validated institution, have a Programme Director. In the case of validated institutions’ programmes of study, the Programme Director is a member of the validated institution’s staff. In this case, the University appoints a University Liaison Officer (ULO), who has a responsibility to:
    1. Act as the Chair of the Progression and Award Board for the programme of study concerned.
    2. Be a source of advice on learning and teaching matters (e.g., assessment strategies and programme resource requirements).
    3. Assist with curriculum development and receive proposals for new courses and programmes at an early stage in their development.
    4. Assist the University in the nomination of external examiners and external periodic review panel members.
    5. Ensure that the relevant Teaching Learning and Enhancement Committee has effective oversight of quality assurance procedures such as external examining and annual monitoring, and ensure that periodic programme reviews have been completed as required for the programme concerned.
    6. Receive agendas and minutes of programme team meetings.
    7. Be a suitable candidate to be a member of any review panels established to undertake periodic programme reviews in provider institutions with similar provision.
    8. Inspect samples of marked student work (the purpose of such inspection will not be to moderate internal marking but to obtain information about student learning and achievement).
    9. Review the standard of student learning and achievement.
    10. Review the effectiveness of the strategy and criteria for assessment.
    11. Review whether marking is undertaken rigorously and in accordance with assessment criteria.
    12. Review whether arrangements for approval of assessment briefs, examination papers and monitoring of internal marking are undertaken in accordance with the University’s Academic Quality Framework.
    13. Submit an annual review to the University via the Quality Team on the quality of the programme and the learning experience of the students as per the template provided.
    14. Agree a schedule of visits to the University/validated institution during the academic year for the purpose of meeting the responsibilities set out above (to visit on three occasions, once per semester, one of which must be made in order to attend the meeting of the Progression and Award Board (one of the three visits other than the Progression and Award Board may be conducted virtually).
    15. Submit the official response to the External Examiner Reports via the Quality Team.
    16. Review the University’s/validated institution’s admissions decisions and ensure that they are made in compliance with admissions protocols.
    17. Review the appointment of new University/validated institution staff appointed to be examiners on programmes leading to University credit and awards. This includes reviewing CVs on an annual basis, and whenever there is a new appointment made throughout the academic year.

Joint Awards

19. A joint award programme of study is a where successful candidates conjoint single certificates that bear the insignia of the University and the partner institution.

Management of Joint Awards

20. The arrangements for the operational management of such programmes typically use the model of Primary Administrative Institution (PAI), where one of the partner institutions assumes primary responsibility for managerial oversight of the programme for a fixed period of time on a rotational basis. Where the University is acting as the PAI for such programmes, the programmes are subject to the University’s AQF.

Dual Awards (Taught)

21. A dual award programme of study is a single or multi-partner programme involving the separate certification of students by the University and the partner institution(s). Students registered on programmes leading to dual awards are subject to the University’s AQF and those of the partner institution(s). Where these regulatory frameworks prove to be divergent, the CPA specifies the respective areas of jurisdiction between the partners.

Management of Dual Awards (Taught)

22. The common model at the University for the operational management of provision leading to dual awards normally involves the appointment of Joint Programme Directors by each partner and the establishment of a Joint Management Board by the partners to oversee the effective running of the programme(s).
23. Joint Programme Directors are normally appointed for a period of three years and have responsibility to:
    1. Ensure that delivery of the programme(s) is in accordance with the Programme Specification as approved by each partner.
    2. Ensure that students, faculty and other staff (as applicable) receive detailed information about all aspects of the programme(s).
    3. Arrange appropriate induction of new faculty in order to ensure that faculty who have not previously contributed to the programme(s) are fully aware of the aims and learning outcomes of the programme(s) and of the contribution to the programme(s) that is expected of them.
    4. Ensure that students have ready access to advice about the options available to them within the programme(s).
    5. Monitor the progress of students on the programme(s).
    6. Elicit the views of students on the programme(s) and the quality of their learning experience.
    7. Consider and prepare a response to any matters raised by the External Examiners and ensure that appropriate actions are taken and followed up by all relevant parties.
    8. Report on relevant matters to the Joint Management Board.
    9. Prepare an annual review of the programme(s) for consideration by the Joint Management Board. The Terms of Reference for the Joint Management Board can be found here.

Collaborative Academic Centres

24. Collaborative Academic Centres (CAC) provide facilities and tutoring for approved programmes of study leading to a University award and/or the award of University credit, normally in liaison with a partner institution, but the CACs tutors have limited engagement with assessment. As the programmes staged at CAC are credit-bearing and lead to a University award, they are subject to the University’s AQF. In addition to the standard annual and periodic review of the programmes of study via the Periodic Review of partner institutions, CAC are subject to Periodic Provider Review.

Articulation Agreements

25. The University may consider entering into articulation agreements with partner institutions that have satisfied the requirements for pre-collaborative approval.
26. In an articulation arrangement, an assessment is made of the equivalence of the learning undertaken at another institution with that required by a level or levels of an appropriate programme of study at the University, with the aim of securing direct entry with advanced standing via a recognised prior learning and credit transfer application for an agreed cohort or cohorts of students from the partner institution to a specified University programme. Further information can be found in the Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer Policy.
27. Articulation Arrangements are subject to Periodic Provider Review. This is a process with external involvement which provides an opportunity for in-depth scrutiny of the strategic case for a partnership and the partner’s ability to continue with the partnership prior to the renewal of the CPA.

External Teaching Contribution

28. The University may consider entering into relationships with partner institutions whereby such institutions contribute to the delivery of a University programme of study, normally by delivering a course(s) or part of a course(s). Such contributions normally include input from the partner institution into the design of the course(s) and/or the use of the partner institution’s premises. Where a contribution consists of delivery only by a partner institution on University premises, these arrangements are not normally considered collaborative provision, but the sessional contracting of staff to deliver on a University programme.
29. Partner institutions contributing to the delivery of a University programme must satisfy the requirements for pre-collaborative approval.
30. Course(s) delivered by partner institutions under these arrangements may be devised by the University, by the partner institution, or jointly. All such courses must be approved by a relevant Faculty at the University as per the requirements of AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modifications.

Promotional Material

31. Materials used by partner institutions to advertise and promote collaborative programmes of study by the University must describe accurately the relationship between the institution and the University and the status of the programme(s) of study. In particular, such materials must not convey the impression that the institution is part of the University or that staff are members of or employed by the University.
32. Each partner Institution must send the University copies of all materials used to advertise and promote programmes of study approved by the University (e.g., web pages and prospectuses) prior to publication. Such materials will be inspected by the University to ensure that they comply with the requirements above.
33. Partner institutions delivering programmes in partnership with the University are permitted to use the University’s trademarks and name in the connection with the performance of its obligations for the programme(s) of study approved by the University. Details of these permissions will be set out in respective CPA.
34. The University undertakes a check of partner institutions’ websites on an annual basis to ensure that partner institutions are representing the University and their relationship and arrangement with the University appropriately. The annual web check is undertaken at the beginning of the academic year and a summary of issues will be reported to the first Academic Board of the academic year. The University follows up any issues with partner Institutions and after three months, checks the relevant web pages to ensure they have been amended.

Serial Relationships

35. Partner institutions must not, without the prior written agreement of the University, enter into a relationship with any third party for the delivery or assessment of any programme leading to a University award or any course leading to the award of University credit.

Pre-Collaborative Approval

36. The University may consider entering into relationships with organisations leading to the delivery of courses for the award of specific University credit where such organisations have satisfied the requirements for pre-collaborative approval.
37. Courses delivered by organisations for specific credit under these arrangements may be devised by the University, by the organisation or, where agreed, by a third party. The organisation may deliver standalone courses(s) for the award of University credit or they may contribute to the delivery of a course which forms part of an existing approved programme of study leading to a University award. All such courses must be approved as per the requirements of AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.
38. Such organisations will be referred to as ‘partner institutions’.

Validation of Partner for the Delivery of Programme(s) for Credit and Award

39. Where a partner has received approval from the University to offer programmes devised, delivered and assessed by the partner, and the University approves credit and academic award, the institution is known as a validated institution.
40. The process for the validation of a partner institution to deliver a full programme requires approval from the Executive Committee and Northeastern London Board.
41. For further information on the validation process please email the Quality Team.

Approval of Partner Institutions for the Delivery of Courses for Specific Credit

42. Partner institutions may not be approved to offer entire levels of programmes of study for University credit via this approval procedure. Such proposals must proceed via the arrangements for validation.
43. Proposals for the approval of courses delivered for specific credit by a partner institution should be considered in the first instance by the relevant Faculty.
44. In approving partner institutions to offer courses for specific credit, the Faculty must be satisfied that:
    1. The tutors provided by the partner institution are appropriately qualified for the delivery of the course(s).
    2. The partner institution can provide an infrastructure of support for student learning such as will facilitate the achievement of the learning outcomes.
    3. The partner institution can adequately quality assure the course they offer for University credit, as per the requirements of the University’s AQF.
45. Appropriate liaison can be undertaken by a Faculty, which will be nominated to act in this capacity. Such liaison will involve providing a member of staff to undertake such responsibilities as:
    1. Acting as a source of advice on learning and teaching matters (e.g. assessment strategies and programme resource requirements).
    2. Receiving agendas and minutes of relevant partner team meetings relating to the delivery of the course(s).
    3. Ensuring that the relevant Faculty has effective oversight of quality assurance procedures such as external examining (where relevant) and annual reviewing and reporting.
    4. Ensuring that information given to students by the partner institution is consistent with University policies and procedures (e.g., appeals and complaints).
    5. Establishing a schedule of regular meetings with relevant staff at the partner institution in order to ensure effective oversight of the provision.
46. In approving the partner institution to deliver courses for specific credit, the Faculty must determine whether it should undertake moderation of assessment completed on the course or whether this may be remitted to markers at the partner institution, as per the requirements for moderation set out in AQF7.

Panel Event to Visit and Evaluate a Partner Institution

47. The relevant Faculty usually requires a visit to the place of delivery to approve the proposal of courses delivered. This visit is conducted by a Panel to assist in its assessment of the capacity of the partner institution to offer and assure a learning experience of an appropriate quality that would enable its students to achieve the learning outcomes.

Appointment of the Panel

48. The Panel normally consists of a member of the Faculty (who acts as Chair) and a member of the Quality Team. The Panel normally convenes over one day, although the length of the visit may be determined by the size and complexity of the proposed partner and course(s).
49. The Terms of Reference for the Panel can be found here.

Panel Event Agenda

50. The panel event agenda will be confirmed between the head of the partner institution (or nominee) and the Chair. Unless a variation to the standard agenda has been negotiated and agreed between the Chair of the Panel and the partner institution, the panel event agenda should incorporate the following:
    1. Welcome by the Head of the Partner Institution
    2. Private meeting of Panel
    3. Meeting with the Course(s) Management Team
    4. Tour of the facilities
    5. Meeting with the teaching team
    6. Meeting with current students (where available)
    7. Private meeting of Panel
    8. Feedback to staff at the partner institution
51. At least two weeks prior to the panel event, the head of the partner institution or their nominee should send copies of the following documentation in liaison with the designated member of the Quality Team, who will circulate the materials to the Panel:
    1. The proposed agenda for the visit.
    2. Rationale for the proposal (i.e. for entering into the proposed collaboration and delivery of course(s) by the partner).
    3. Course Descriptor(s) (to be taught/assessed by the proposed partner).
    4. Staff management structure and CVs of all staff who are to teach on the proposed course(s).
    5. Statement of available physical resources (in relation to the delivery of the proposed course(s)) – a brief statement from the partner on physical resources related to the teaching of the courses.
    6. Self-assessment of the infrastructure of support for student learning and student welfare (for the proposed course(s)).
    7. Requirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (where applicable).
    8. Any draft Course Syllabus (i.e. Course Syllabus for those courses to be taught by the partner).

Activities Following a Successful Panel Event

52. The Faculty must inform the Quality Team in writing of all courses approved to be offered for specific credit by a partner institution in order that an appropriate CPA might be signed by the parties and the details of the collaboration added to the Collaborative Provision Register. The delivery of courses approved under these arrangements may not commence until these steps have been completed.
53. Such arrangements may be approved for a maximum period of three years in the first instance, with continuation subject to completion of a successful Periodic Provider Review.
54. For each course or group of courses offered by a partner institution, the University appoints annually an assessment board for the purpose of awarding credit to successful students. This board includes at least one member of the partner institution who holds marking responsibilities for the courses approved by the University.
55. Where such courses make a contribution to the classification of a University award, they must be subject to External Examiner oversight as per the requirements of AQF11 External Examining.
56. The University issues all transcripts for students who pass courses approved to run at partner institutions under this procedure.

Procedure for Approval of a Collaborative Academic Centre

57. All proposed new Collaborative Academic Centres (CAC) are subject to pre collaborative approval. However, given the limited nature of the engagement of CACs with the assessment of students, the key focus of the due diligence process will be to secure confirmation of good standing in the following areas:
    1. Evidence of financial viability of the CAC.
    2. Statement from the relevant local/regional/national government (where this is necessary) confirming that the academic centre, acting on behalf of partner, is authorised to enter into a collaborative partnership with an overseas or ‘foreign’ partner.
    3. Information about the recruitment/appointment /monitoring and support of teaching staff (including English language proficiency for non-native speakers of English).
    4. Statement on resources (i.e. those not provided directly by the partner institution and which students will need to access during their studies).
    5. Statement on management structure of the academic centre.
    6. Statement identifying any other previous, actual or potential collaborative partnerships, whether this be UK higher education providers, or professional bodies or other non-UK organisations.
    7. Insurance or other arrangements which the academic centre has in force in respect of its responsibilities and liabilities towards students.

Visit and Evaluate a Collaborative Academic Centre

58. A team from the University will visit the proposed CAC in order to assess and report to the University on its capacity to stage the delivery of the collaborative programme of study in question. The team undertaking the visit should consist of at least one representative from the relevant subject area or Discipline, who will be Chair, and a representative from the Quality Team. Where it is proposed that the CAC should stage the delivery of a programme of study, the visit of the University’s inspection team may be combined with that of the validated partner institution. It is expected that the meetings involved in the visit may normally be scheduled to take place over a single day; however, where the Centre is very large or is based on more than one site, the visit may be longer.
59. During the visit, a series of meetings with key personnel from the proposed Centre will be held. The University will wish to satisfy itself about the fitness of the Centre’s tutors to deliver the learning materials and the suitability and appropriateness of the learning environment, including learning resources. These meetings may be conducted in collaboration with the partner institutions or may, at the discretion of the Chair, be held separately. The schedule for the visit should normally resemble the following format:
    1. Private meeting of the Panel.
    2. Meeting with senior staff of the Academic Centre.
    3. Confidential meeting with core teaching staff (i.e. without the Centre’s senior staff present).
    4. Meeting with a representative sample of support staff (admissions, student welfare, library and computing staff, etc. – generally those involved with students and, where these matters are not dealt with directly, staff from the University or partner organisation).
    5. Confidential meeting with a representative sample of (existing) students.
    6. Inspection of facilities.
    7. Final meeting with senior staff and other participants to feed back on the visit and the University Panel’s views regarding recommendation of approval (or not), and whether there are any conditions that may first need to be met.

Activities Following a Successful Panel Event

60. Following the visit, a report setting out the recommendations of the University team will be drafted and submitted to the Chair of the panel for approval. Where it is possible for the University team and that of any partner institutions to agree on the contents of the report, a single report and set of recommendations arising from the visit may be produced and circulated by both parties. The University Chair holds ultimate authority on determining the contents of the report. CACs (and the approved collaborative partner in cases of tripartite agreements) will be given an opportunity to comment on the report for factual accuracy before the report is submitted to the relevant University committees.
61. The report will recommend approval (or not) of the proposed new CAC and will set down any conditions of approval which may first need to be met and will specify deadlines for doing so.

Information to Students

62. Partner Institutions delivering programmes of study approved by the University are responsible for ensuring that students are provided with full and detailed information about their programme of study as prescribed by the AQF.
63. For each collaborative programme of study, partner institutions should provide students with a programme handbook containing details of curriculum, assessment scheme and regulations, timetable, staff names and contact points. The University will proofread handbooks before they are published.
64. Partner institutions should issue students registered on collaborative programmes of study with information provided by the University on its services and procedures.
65. Partner institutions should ensure that students have accurate information regarding the nature of the relationship between the two parties and on their entitlements and rights arising from that relationship.

Student Admission

66. UK based institutions must ensure that policies and practices for student admissions uphold the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA UK Quality Code.
67. Where students are admitted to University programmes with advance standing on an individual basis, the guidance in the AQF7 chapter and the Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer Policy should be followed.
68. Where students are admitted to a collaborative programme of study delivered by their employer, the University must ensure its obligations to those individuals who are also employees of the partner institution are made clear in the event that their employment is terminated.

Partner Institutions

69. Candidates who meet the requirements for admission to a programme of study at a partner institution, as set out in the programme proposal and approved by the University, may be admitted to the programme without reference to the University.
70. Where a partner institution wishes to admit a candidate who does not meet the approved entry requirements, it must obtain approval to do so from the relevant ULO or Programme Director. Requests, accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation, must be submitted to the Quality Team, which will seek approval from the relevant Faculty Director.

Dual Awards

71. Students applying to study for a dual award with the University and a partner institution will be subject to the admissions procedures agreed jointly by the parties.

Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer

72. The University’s procedures for Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer (RPLCT) are detailed in the Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer Policy. Recommendations by partner institutions for the award of credit awarded via RPLCT are subject to verification by the University’s RPLCT.

Student Records

73. The process for registering students with the University will depend on the type of collaboration the programme of study involves. The responsibilities of the University and the partner institution will be set out in individual CPA.

Partner Institutions

74. Partner institutions must:
    1. Maintain full student records for students registered on their programmes of study.
    2. Maintain full student records and inform the Quality Team of the full legal name and date of birth of each new student and of the programme of study for which the student is registered by 1 November each academic year.
    3. Inform the Quality Team promptly (within one month) of changes to student records: e.g. where students withdraw or intermit from a collaborated programme of study.

Dual Awards

75. With regard to collaborative programmes of study leading to dual awards, students will be registered with the University and the partner institution. The partners will regularly share information on changes to student registrations.

Break in Study

Partner Institutions

76. In cases of illness or other reasonable cause, partner institutions may, without reference to the University, permit a student to have a Break in Study for up to one year, or an agreed Break in Learning (apprenticeships). Documentation submitted as evidence of reasonable cause should be retained by the institution for future reference. Registry must be notified of this information.

Dual Awards

77. Students wishing to take a Break in Study from a programme of study leading to a dual award should seek permission from the institution at which they are studying at the time. The partners will regularly exchange information on such changes to student registrations.

Quality Assurance

78. Collaborative programmes of study leading to awards of the University are subject to the University’s regulations, policies and procedures as set out in the AQF, except insofar as these may be varied in a signed CPA.
79. Providers offering programmes of study leading to University awards are required to have in place a quality assurance system that is consistent with the requirements of the University’s AQF.
80.  A member of the University faculty will be nominated to oversee the effective quality management of each collaborative programme of study. The nominated individual will exercise such responsibilities for collaborative programmes of study as are assigned by the AQF for programmes leading to University awards.

Programme and Course Approval

81. The approval of collaborative programmes of study leading to University awards will be subject to the procedures specified in AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.
82. Courses offered for University credit are subject to the requirements of  AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.
83. Courses may be approved in an alternative format to the template provided, where such courses:
    1. Form part of a programme leading to a joint award where the University is not the PAI.
    2. Are devised and delivered by a partner institution as part of a collaborative programme of study leading to a dual award.
    3. Are being delivered where advanced permission has been granted by the University to use an alternative template.
84. Such alternative templates for courses will normally be expected to be consistent with the key requirements of the University’s template.

Programme and Course Modifications

85. Programme and course modification for University programmes/courses should be undertaken in line with AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification.

Programme Modification

86. Proposals for Category 1 modifications to approve programmes of study, which involve no revision of the programme aims and learning outcomes, may be agreed by the University’s Quality Team.
87. Proposals for Category 2 and/or 3 modifications to approved programmes of study, including revision of the programme aims and learning outcomes must be considered and recommended for approval by the relevant Faculty prior to their submission for approval either by the Head of Quality Assurance or by the Programme and Course Modification Review Group, in accordance with the University’s AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification procedures.

Course Modifications

88. Proposals for Category 1 modifications to a course already approved by the University as part of a collaborative programme of study which involves no revision of the learning outcomes, such as the updating of reading lists, may be approved by the University’s Quality Team.
89. Proposals for Category 2 and/or 3 modifications to approved programmes of study, including revision of the programme aims and learning outcomes, must be considered and recommended for approval by the relevant Faculty prior to their submission for approval either by the Head of Quality Assurance or by the Programme and Course Modification Review Group, in accordance with the University’s AQF4 Programme and Course Approval and Modification procedures.

Annual Monitoring and Reporting of Taught Provision

90. The University has in place an annual monitoring and reporting process, as set out in AQF5 Annual Monitoring and Reporting, for monitoring courses, programmes and student progress.
91. The principles of annual monitoring and reporting are as follows:
    1. To establish an effective and efficient procedure through which the University may review and monitor its provision in order to maintain quality and standards.
    2. To ensure that stakeholders are involved in and contribute to the production of annual reports, to ensure that the University’s provision is monitored and reported on as appropriate.
    3. To produce a sound and evidence-based report upon which faculty, at both programme and course level, may base enhancements to the quality and operational effectiveness of the University’s provision and the student learning experience.
92. The objectives of the annual monitoring and reporting are:
    1. To provide an evidence-base for faculty to improve and enhance the learning experience of students, through action at course and programme level.
    2. To confirm (in conjunction with External Examiner Reports) that the quality and academic standards of provision have been maintained in accordance with all external and internal benchmarks and requirements.
    3. To collect longitudinal data and information on which basic trends and changes relevant to the longer-term quality and sustainability of provision can be assessed (including through periodic review) and actioned appropriately.
93. Annual monitoring is the formal reporting of, and response to, actions taken as a result of the ongoing review and evaluation of provision, aimed at enhancing the student experience. It has equal application to collaborative provision as it has to mainstream University approved programmes. University annual monitoring review templates will be used by the partner institutions.

Partner Institutions

94. For programmes of study in collaboration with partner institutions, the Co-Chair of the Progression and Award Board, who is normally the Programme Director or the ULO, shall be responsible for ensuring that an annual review is submitted each year to the relevant Faculty in accordance with the timeframe set out in the CPA.
    1. When submitting its annual review to the University, partner institutions should also send a copy to the Quality Team.
    2. Annual reviews for partner institutions should be accompanied by the reports from the ULO.
95. Annual reviews and/or reports submitted by partner institutions should be considered by the liaising Faculty. The Faculty Annual Standards Report should include the consideration of such reports.

Dual Awards

96. With respect to collaborative programmes of study leading to dual awards, the Joint Management Board is responsible for preparing an annual review for the programme, which will be considered in accordance with the University’s AQF and with the appropriate procedures of the partner institution.

Joint Awards

97. Programme monitoring reviews of collaborative programmes of study leading to joint awards will be undertaken on an annual basis in accordance with the established procedures of the PAI. The Joint Management Board with responsibility for the programme(s) must ensure that the resulting annual monitoring review and relevant statistical data are presented in a timely fashion to the appropriate committees of the respective partners.

Collaborative Academic Centres

98. An approved CAC is obliged to submit to the Quality Team an annual report with the intention of establishing that it remains a financially and legally viable institution for the purpose of teaching students on programmes leading to an award of the University. This is a separate report to the annual monitoring review on the programme and its courses.
99. For all collaborative programmes of study, statistical and student evaluation data should be summarised in the annual programme review. The full data will be made available by the Quality Team.

Assessment Boards

100. The University’s expectations for assessment boards is set out in AQF12 Assessment Boards. This present document should be read as supplementing AQF12 Assessment Boards by setting down additional procedures relevant to collaborative provision.
101. The University shall appoint annually a Progression and Award Board (PAB) for each collaborative programme of study leading to a University award.
102. PAB is responsible for agreeing the marks to be awarded to students, for deciding whether students may progress to the next stage of a programme of study and for recommending the awarding of qualifications to students.
103. The identities of candidates shall not be made known to the members of any PAB during the proceedings for confirming marks and awarding credit, or when determining the progression or classification of students.
104. Normally, the University’s Student Record System will be used for managing the integration of results from different elements of assessment, the verification of marks and the provision of composite mark sheets for PABs.

Partner Institutions

105. Partner institutions do not use the University’s Student Record System, instead they use collated mark sheets derived from their own student record systems.
106. The membership includes the Award External Examiner, at least one member of the University, normally the University Liaison Officer, who shall be appointed as Chair, Academic Registrar, Course Leaders and normally the Programme Director from the partner institution, who shall be appointed as Co-Chair.
107. Students are informed of decisions made regarding their progress and the awarding of qualifications by the partner institution. The release of ratified results by the partner institution must first be authorised by the University’s Registrar.

Dual Awards and Joint Awards

108. The detail of the membership requirements for PABs for programmes leading to dual or joint awards is set out in the relevant CPA.

External Examining

109. The University’s expectations of its external examiners and their contribution to securing academic standards are set out in AQF11 External Examining. This present document should be read as supplementing AQF11 External Examining by setting down additional procedures relevant to collaborative provision.
110. In accordance with the principles and procedures set out in AQF11 External Examining, the University shall appoint one or more External Examiner for each collaborative programme of study leading to a University award. No University qualification shall be awarded without participation in the examining process of at least one External Examiner.
111. The Quality Team shall review the response to the External Examiner Report and submit it to Academic Board for review and approval prior to being sent to the external examiner.
112. External examiners are required to submit an annual report to the University within four weeks of the main annual meeting of the PAB. Reports submitted will be circulated to the relevant staff by the Quality Team.
113. The Quality Team will send an expense claim form to each external examiner. Payment of fees and expenses will be arranged by the Quality Team as soon as possible following receipt of the invoice, claim form and the report from the external examiner.
114. The Quality Team tracks the actions listed in the response to ensure that they are included in the annual programme review action plan. A mid-point review will be held to monitor progress on action points.

Partner Institutions

115. The ULO or the Programme Director will provide the Quality Team with a commentary on the report and an account of any actions planned in response to the external examiner’s recommendations. The ULO or the Programme Director will liaise with the Course Leaders on the drafting of the response.

Dual Awards

116. With regard to programmes of study leading to dual awards, the Chair of the assessment board at the University will ensure that, for the purpose of affirming standards, the University’s external examiners have appropriate oversight of the work undertaken by students at the partner institution. To facilitate these arrangements external examiners will sample examples of the students work as per the relevant section in AQF11.

Student Discipline

Academic Misconduct

117. The University’s academic offences regulations, as in AQF7, has application to alleged academic offences committed with respect to:
     1. All provision with partner institutions.
     2. Those courses approved and delivered by the University as part of a programme of study leading to a dual award.
     3. Award of specific credit arrangements.
     4. Collaborative Academic Centre arrangements.

Dual Awards

118. The CPA for dual award programmes will specify the detail of the arrangements for managing academic offences.

Academic Diligence

Partner Institutions

119. Partner institutions should have in place:
     1. Regulations and procedures for dealing with breaches of discipline by their students, such as repeated non-attendance or non-submission of assessed work. Thus, for example, a student who fails to attend compulsory classes should be dealt with by the institution concerned under its own regulations and procedures without reference to or involvement of the University.
     2. A formal warning system for dealing with matters of discipline. Thus, for example, a student who fails to attend compulsory classes should be dealt with by the institution concerned as per the formal warning system established for this purpose. Recommendations to withdraw students for such alleged breaches of discipline should be made by the institution to the ULO or Programme Director. Students in this position are permitted to submit a representation to the Faculty in their defence when such recommendations are considered.

Academic Appeals, Academic Complaints and Complaints

120. An academic appeal is defined as a request for a review of a decision made by the PAB with regard to matters of progression to the next stage, assessment results or academic awards.
121. An academic complaint is defined as a specific concern about the provision of a programme of study or related academic service: e.g. delivery of teaching, availability of learning resources.
122. A complaint is defined as any specific concern, other than one relating to an academic matter as defined above, made by a student with regard to services provided by the institution against which the complaint is made.
123. Academic appeals made by students on collaborative programmes of study against decisions made by the University appointed PAB are subject to the procedures set out in AQF7. Dissatisfied appellants and complainants on collaborative programmes of study who have exhausted the relevant procedures of the partner institution and the University have recourse to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).
124. Guidance on submitting appeals or complaints to the University is made available to students studying for awards at partner institutions in the University’s Academic Handbook.

Partner Institution

125. Partner institutions should have in place procedures for dealing with academic complaints from students in the first instance and should ensure that students are aware of these procedures. Dissatisfied complainants on academic grounds who have exhausted the complaints procedure of the partner institutions have a further right of complaint to the University.
126. Partner institutions may process complaints on non-academic grounds according to their procedures and do so without recourse to the University. Where such complaints are made with respect to services provided by the University, the University’s complaints procedure should be used.
127. With respect to programmes of study offered in collaboration with the University, partner institutions should report to the University on an annual basis as to the number of academic and non-academic complaints submitted by students on these programmes and the outcome of these complaints.

Dual Awards

128. With respect to programmes of study offered in collaboration with the University, partner institutions should report to the University on an annual basis as to the number of academic and non-academic complaints submitted by students on these programmes and the outcome of these complaints. Where Joint Management Boards are in operation such reports should be first submitted there for consideration.

Certificates, Transcripts and Award Ceremonies

129. Degrees, diplomas and certificates awarded by the University will normally be conferred at a degree congregation or awards ceremony of the University. Students and their guests will be entitled to attend on payment of the appropriate fee or may have their degree awarded ‘in absentia’.
130. A partner institution may itself, with the agreement of the University, arrange a ceremony at which students are presented with award certificates.
131. Certification of University awards will only be undertaken by the University.
132. University certificates will include the name and place of study of the programme.
133. The certificate and/or transcript record must include the principal language of instruction where this is not English and the language of assessment if this is not English. Where this information is only recorded on the transcript the certificate will refer to the existence of the transcript.
134. The University will undertake to provide transcripts to all students in receipt of University credit. Where transcripts are provided by a validated institution, the Quality Team must oversee this process on behalf of the University.

Periodic Provider Review

The Review and its Purpose

135. On a periodic basis, the University will undertake a strategic review of all collaborative provisions.
136. The nature of such Periodic Provider Reviews (PPRe) will be determined by the type of arrangement under consideration. However, all reviews provide an opportunity for in-depth scrutiny of the strategic case for a partnership and the partner’s ability to continue with the partnership prior to the renewal of the CPA.

Review Cycle

137. A Periodic Provider Review will be organised around the following CPA renewal periods:
     1. Partner institutions five yearly review
     2. Joint/Dual award arrangements six yearly review
     3. Collaborative academic centres five yearly review
     4. Articulation agreements three yearly review
     5. External teaching contribution three yearly review
     6. Agreements for the delivery of courses by partner institutions leading to the award of specific credit three yearly review

Timings of Reviews

138. Reviews will usually commence during autumn semester in the academic year during which the related CPA will expire.
139. Where the related CPA will expire during autumn semester, the review will usually commence during the preceding spring semester.

Renewal of the Pre-Collaboration Checks

140. For all types of partnership considered under Periodic Provider Review, the University will undertake renewed Pre-Collaboration checks. These consist of due diligence checks and risk assessments on the partner institution. Such checks will include an assessment that the partner institution remains of sound financial standing.

Review of Joint Awards Arrangements, Collaborative Academic Centres and Arrangements for the Delivery of Courses by Partner Institutions Leading to the Award of Specific Credit

141. For the review of collaborative provision, the basis of the review will be the submission of the following documents for approval at Academic Board, prior to final approval by Northeastern London Board.
     1. Renewed Statement of Strategic Benefit, Due Diligence Checklist and Risk Assessments regarding the collaborative provision.
     2. Most recent Periodic Programme Review Reports for the programmes delivered in collaboration.
     3. Three most recent relevant External Examiner Reports for the programmes delivered in collaboration.
     4. Checklist signed by both the ULO (or Programme Director) and partner attesting to the on-going suitability of the arrangement and partnership.
142. When submitting the documentation listed above the Quality Team will highlight any risk factors which require further scrutiny by Academic Board.
143. The Quality Team will recommend whether further scrutiny should be the submission of further information, evidence and assurance by the partner.
144. Once the approval of the renewal of the partnership has been achieved a new CPA will be signed.

Further Scrutiny

145. The following are some illustrative examples of where a recommendation for further scrutiny under Periodic Provider Review might be made by the Quality Team:
146. Concerns raised during the completion of the due diligence process.
147. A risk assessment score of high, or very high.
148. A risk to standards being identified in the PPRe, or external examiners reports.
149. Recommendations from previous approval/renewal process not having been fully met.
150. Changes in the nature of the arrangement since the previous approval/renewal process was completed.
151. The Quality Team will request on behalf of Academic Board a time limited extension to the existing CPA, where it is considered completion of the review will take longer than the remaining term of the CPA, for example, where further information or a Partnership Review Panel is required in order to enable the review processes to be completed.

Review of Partner Institutions

152. For partner institutions, the basis for PPRe will be the consideration of evidence by the Partnership Review Panel (PRP) constituted.
153. The outcomes of the PRP will be approved by Academic Board.
154. For the review of partner institutions, a visit to the relevant partner institution by a member of the PRP will be required.
155. Once the PRP is satisfied that the arrangement can be renewed, a new CPA will be signed.
156. Terms of Reference can be viewed here.

The Evidence

157. At least two weeks prior to the review, the partner institution should send copies of the following documents to the University’s Quality Team, who will circulate the documents to the PRP:
     1. Renewed Statement of Strategic Benefit, Due Diligence Checklist and Risk Assessment regarding the partnership.
     2. Self-Evaluation Document (SED) which is a statement from the partner regarding the effectiveness of the partnership, including commentary on student numbers and success and progression data, a self-evaluation of the available physical resources (in relation to the delivery of the collaborative programmes) and a self-evaluation of the infrastructure of support for student learning and student welfare.
     3. A statement from the Faculty Director regarding the effectiveness of the partnership.
     4. ULO/Programme Director annual reviews.
     5. Teaching staff CVs.
     6. External review reports, for example those produced by a designated quality body.
     7. Relevant programme reviews for the programmes delivered in the collaborative provision.
     8. Relevant external examiners’ reports for the programmes delivered in the collaborative provision.
     9. A business case for the next five years.

Powers of the Partnership Review Panel

158. The PRP will meet to review the evidence submitted. Each panel member will conduct a desk-based review of the documentation. Following on from the panel meeting and discussing their findings, the PRP will determine one of the following three outcomes:
     1. The PRP can recommend the renewal of the proposal on the basis of the submitted paperwork. In this case the representative from the Quality Team will produce a formal report on the review at this stage.
     2. The PRP requires further documentary evidence before reaching its decision. In this case the Panel will either review the documentation and make a collective decision outside of a further panel meeting or it may decide they need to reconvene a review panel meeting. In both cases, the representative from the Quality Team will await the final decision of the panel before producing the formal report on the review.
     3. The PRP requires members of the panel to visit the place of delivery in order to assist in the assessment of the capacity of the partner to continue to offer and assure a learning experience of the expected standard. Should this be the case, the PRP shall identify issues for the members to investigate during its visit. The PRP will normally nominate one key panel member and the external panel member to attend the visit. The representative from the Quality Team will await the return of the visit and the final decisions of the panel before producing a formal report on the review.

Termination of Partnership

159. The CPA sets out provision for termination of the agreement. The University and the partner institution(s) will make arrangements to safeguard the best interests of registered and prospective students during the termination period, the details of which will be set out in an exit agreement.
160. The University retains responsibility for ensuring that students, admitted to a collaborative programme of study delivered by a partner institution, can complete it in the event that a partner withdraws from an arrangement.
161. The CPA sets out provision for termination, or review, of the agreement in the event that the partner has a change of ownership or status. Unless the CPA specifies that the partner may delegate its responsibilities to an affiliate member or third party, the University may terminate the partnership in the event of a change of ownership or status of the partner institution.
162. The CPA should set out financial arrangements to be followed should the arrangement be terminated.
163. Contact with students registered on a collaborative programme of study which either party has served notice on will normally be coordinated by the University. The partner, or a third party, will not be responsible for communication with students regarding the termination arrangements of a collaborative programme of study unless authorised to do so by a member of the University’s Executive Committee.
164. On termination of any partnership the University must:
     1. Ensure that students receive timely written notice of any changes to their registration with the University.
     2. Take all reasonable measures to ensure that students can complete the University award, regardless of whether or not the partner is able to deliver and/ or assess the programme.
     3. (Only in exceptional circumstances) Inform students of their right to transfer to an alternative awarding institution. In this eventuality, the University will provide students with sufficient information to help them choose whether they wish to transfer their registration to an alternative awarding institution or remain registered with the University. Only students who agree to a transfer will be transferred to the alternative awarding institution.

Version History