Professional, Statutory and/or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) / Section 11

11Professional, Statutory andor Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)

11.1 Accreditation

11.1.1Scope

Programmes validated by the University may also be accredited by a range of Professional, Statutory and/or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).

Many PSRBs require separate accreditation events. Wherever possible and desirable,however, validation/accreditation will be conducted jointly between the University and the relevant Professional,Statutory and/or Regulatory Body, to achieve effective academic and professional validation. This procedure outlines requirements for both accreditation as separate events as well as for joint events as part of a Universityvalidation/review.

Partners may additionally be subject to the requirements of external in-country regulators, for example KHDA in Dubai and TEC in Mauritius. Confirmation of receipt of authorisation from in-country regulators should be provided to Academic Partnerships Office.

11.1.2Responsibilities

On agreement with the Dean of Faculty, a programme may be accredited by, or have accreditation sought for it, from a UK PSRB. The appropriate Deputy Dean is responsible for the accreditation of Faculty provision. The appropriate Facultywill provide the PSRB with the documentation it requires. For joint collaborative programmes, AQSwill ensure effective liaison with the partner institution for PSRB visit arrangements as well as production of the required documentation.

Twice annually, AQS will send out to Faculties the list of PSRB programme accreditations for updating. Faculties will return this information to AQS who will maintain a master spreadsheet of all PSRB programme accreditations in the University. Faculties are to provide AQS with information as to upcoming PSRB reviews/visits and the outcomes/reports following any such review. This information will be provided by AQS to the Assurance Committee in an annual report.

Collaborative programmes which have validated status seek direct accreditation from a PSRB. Therefore,AQSmay provide developmental support to the partner but will not take responsibility for supporting the proposal nor maintaining PSRB requirements post accreditation.

After the event the Faculty must submit AQS a copy of:

  • The PSRB report.
  • The Faculties response to the PSRB outlining how it has met any conditions and considered/implemented recommendations.
  • If applicable, the final letter or certificate from the PSRB confirming the programmes which have received accreditation and the renewal year. Alternatively the correspondence may confirm withdrawal of accreditation for all or some programmes.

The information from this documentation will also be entered onto a database for monitoring and reporting purposes.

AQS will submit an annual report to Assurance Committee in September/October each year summarising the outcomes of all PSRB visits during the previous academic year.

11.1.3Accreditation as part of aUniversity Validation/review event

The practical arrangement for when a joint Validation/Review and accreditation is to be convened are the same as for a separate accreditation event.

The status of each panel member, Co-Chair arrangements if any, and dual aims of the event must be clearly stated. All participants must be aware that although the event is a single process the outcomes may require separate approval by the University and PSRB before the programme can commence.

The outcomes of the validation/review event must clearly state the outcome of the PSRB accreditation, including the accreditation or exemption granted to each programme separately.

11.1.4Accreditation through inspection

The DfE, NCTL and OFSTED fall within the Professional Statutory and/or Regulatory Body category referred to in this Handbook and have the following specific requirements:

  1. Initial Teacher Training providers are required to meet the statutory demands of the Department for Education and the Teachers’ Standards (DfE 2011).
  2. The University, as an ITT provider, must meet the ‘ITT Criteria’ and trainee teachers must meet the Teachers’ Standards in order that they can be recommended for QTS. It is these requirements and the standards outcomes, along with the non-statutory guidance published by the DfE that underpin the Programme Specification for ITT provision.
  3. ITT programmes are normally inspected by OFSTED every three to six years against these requirements and standards and a judgement made as to the quality of training being provided by the ITT Partnership (University, Schools and Settings). OFSTED publishes its inspection reports and the NCTL publishes, annual performance profiles as part of its review of Initial Teacher Training Institutions for information for stakeholders.
  4. The Faculty responsible for managing the preparation for inspection will work with the current OFSTED framework which defines the inspection methodology employed for inspections.
  5. After receipt of the OFSTED published inspection report an action plan is drawn up by academics in the provision inspected to address any points raised. Relevant action points are included in the Improvement plans and Education Department AME Action Plan.
  6. The action plan informs the quality enhancement process within the area of provision over the period through to the next inspection.
  7. It is essential that Middlesex University ITT programmes meet the Initial Teacher Training Criteria to maintain allocations of ITT places. It is also important that programmes are designed to deliver the standards thus placing trainees in a position to be able to qualify to teach in primary or secondary schools, or Early Years Settings. Action planning and the quality enhancement processes are at the fore of ensuring that programmes meet the requirements and the standards.

11.1.5 Accreditation of Healthcare Professions

Quality assurance, accreditation, monitoring and enhancement of Department of Health (DH) funded nursing and midwifery programmes is currentlycarried out by Mott MacDonald in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on behalf of the professional body the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).

There are three elements for accreditation and ongoing approval by the NMC:

  • approval
  • annual monitoring
  • modifications

Approval

Approval includes initial approval and re-approval of all programmes of nursing and midwifery education which lead to a mark on the register. The process is also used to approve mentor and practice teacher programmes which do not lead to recordable qualifications. Approved education providers organise an approval panel to include NMC reviewer(s) with due regard for the programme to be approved. The approval process should follow the guidelines in the Mott MacDonald handbook.

Annual monitoring

Annual monitoring is carried out by a team of reviewers with due regard, led by a managing reviewer. The key risk areas are indicated in the review plan. Each year monitoringfocuses on specific areas of practice with the intention of covering the full range of programmes offered by the provider over afive-year period.

Modifications

Modifications to a programme may be minor or major and are approved according to processes published by Mott MacDonaldin the QA handbook.

11.2Post accreditation

For joint and franchised programmes both the University and Institutional Link Tutors take day-to-day responsibility for seeing that the Programme is delivered as agreed with the PSRB and for communicating as necessary with its officers.

11.3Investigating complaints by Professional Statutory and/or Regulatory Bodies

In the interests of transparency and fairness, a Faculty cannot be permitted to investigate serious complaints against itself without some independent input.

Accordingly, in the case of complaints made by professional, validating or accrediting bodies, or complaints which relate to or arise out of a validation issue or some contractual obligation into which the University has entered, the following formal procedures apply:

  1. A Faculty which receives a complaint by a professional, validating or accrediting body etc shall immediately inform the appropriate member of Executive who shall, after consultation with the Dean of Faculty, determine whether the complaint may be investigated internally within the Faculty, or whether a totally independent investigation shall be held.
  2. If the complaint is to be investigated internally, the appropriate member of Executive shall set a date by which a report shall be made, jointly by the relevant Dean and a member of the Assurance Committee nominated by the Director of Academic Quality Service (AQS), to the Assurance Committee, which shall either endorse the report and action taken, or decide that other action is needed.
  3. If the complaint is to be investigated independently, the investigation shall normally be Chaired by the Director of AQS or nominee; a majority of members of the investigating panel (normally three, plus officer) shall be drawn from persons who are not members of the Faculty in question. A report shall be presented to the Assurance Committee.