3Programme validation, review and modifications

3.1Flowchart

3.2The difference between a validation and review event

3.2.1Definitions

Validation/Validation event: the process by which the University ensures that any programme is academically sound and may be offered to students

Approval: The outcome of a validation event may result in the granting of approval to the programme. This enables the programme to be offered, subject to meeting any conditions set.

Review/Review event: the process by which an approved programme, or group of programmes, is considered for re-validation A successful review results in the re-validation of a programme or programmes for a further period, subject to meeting any conditions set.

The only time an event will be classed as a validation is when it is considering a completely new programme which has not been developed from anything currently existing and with no history. All other events will be classified as reviews, with the appropriate documentation, ie QMRs etc and the inclusion of students

Distance education: programmes or parts of programmes explicitly designed to provide for students who are geographically removed from the university or partner institutions. Students studying on distance education programmes may be resident in the UK or overseas. The programme will be regarded as distance education where more than 50% of the teaching is not delivered face to face.

3.2.2Definitions: Collaborative programmes

Joint programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a qualification of the University, designed, delivered and assessed jointly with a Partner Institution (or Institutions) and quality assured by the University.

Collaborative research programme - A University programme, leading to a qualification of the University jointly designed & delivered by the University and a partner. Taught components are assessed by the University and partner; research components are assessed by the University. Quality assured by the University.

Franchised programme – a University programme, or part thereof, leading to a qualification of the University, designed, assessed and quality assured by the University but delivered at and by a Partner Institution.

Validated programme – a programme of study, developed, assessed and delivered by a Partner Institution, awarded by and ultimately quality assured by the University

3.3Programme Validation and Review

3.3.1Timing, location and expenses

No validation event for a programme due to start in September or January should occur after the preceding May or October respectively, unless by approval of the Chair of APAC. This applies to all variants of validation procedure at both programme and module level as detailed later in this chapter.

Normally, the validation or review event must be located at the University campus in which the programme will be delivered and for collaborative programmes at the partner institution. This is to allow viewing of the facilities/resources pertaining to the programme and to provide assurance that the programme meets its specification. However, for collaborative programmes the School may apply via APAC to hold the validation at the University or, exceptionally, by video conference.

There are charges to Collaborative Partners for validation and review events of joint, franchised and validated programmes. Further information can be obtained by contacting the AQSteamor Academic Partnerships.

3.3.2Procedure

3.3.2.1 Preparation meeting for a validation or review

Any formal Validation or Review should be preceded by a School preparation meeting to discuss:

  • the proposal
  • the timetable for preparation
  • the Panel
  • draft documentation (including Programme Specification - Appendix 3f)
  • practical arrangements for the event.

Guidance on designing a curriculum is available in Guidance 3viii, and a template for programme handbooks in Appendices 3i-3l.

The meeting is:

  • Chaired by the relevant Deputy Dean (or nominee).
  • Held far enough in advance of the formal event to allow for necessary correction and circulation of documents.
  • Attended by the key programme team members, the Officer, and any important contributors to the programme development, whether internal or external to the University.

If the event involves members too distant to attend, a telephone or other link can be used to receive their input during the meeting.

The checklist of officer duties (see Guidance 3i) and the list of documentation (seeGuidance3xxix) should be used as a prompt.Discussion should include the draft agenda (Appendix 3n or 3omay be useful), timetable and practical arrangements. Notes of the working meeting are not presented as part of the formal paperwork for the event.

3.3.2.2People involved in a validationor review event

The Validation of Review Panel usually comprises the following members (see Guidance 3iii for information on the roles and responsibilities of each member, and guidance 3xxviii for specific information for Distance Education validations):

  • Officer(In the case of an enhanced validated partner event, the Officer may be a member of staff of the partner institution)
Chair and a University representative
Please note that:

-Both should normally be a senior member of staff familiar with University procedures.

-Either the Chair or the University Representative must have experience of working actively with students in a learning, teaching and assessment capacity.

-Both the Chair and the University Representative can be from the same School as each other although every effort should be made to use a Chair and a University Representative from different Schools

-The Chair should not be from the same School as the programme which is being validated.

-The University Representative can be from the same School as the programme which is being validated although he/she must be from a different department.

  • Professional statutory and/or regulatory body representative(s) Co-Chair as appropriate
  • One/two External Assessors using the criteria inGuidance 3v:
  • Student representative

See Guidance3i for a table of panel compositions according to the type of validation or review

In addition the following attend the Validation or Review event for meetings with the panel:

senior School staff - the Dean of School and/or the relevant Deputy Dean (and other(s), such as the Head of Department, as relevant). If the proposal is heavily cross-curricular, senior staff from the other schools are also involved
programme team – the team usually includes: the Programme Director, Programme Leader and members of team and the Liaison Manager from Library and Student Services. If relevant: key technicians, administrators, English Language Learning Support and Centre for Academic Practice Enhancement staff, careers manager and external institutions/businesses or other University staff

for review events, the panel will also meet with students, who should represent a cross-section of the current cohortsincluding overseas campuses and where possible, graduates of the programme

and for collaborative events

  • senior staff and the Principal (or representative) of the institution (as appropriate).
  • programme Team, including the University and Institution Link Tutors.

NB For Enhanced Validated Partners, all validation and review events will be Chaired by the University and the panel will be set up according to University processes. The event will be managed and administered by the partner, or with substantial administrative input from the partner.

3.3.2.3Documentation

For a detailed explanation of each document’s contents and who has responsibility, see Guidance3xxix

3.3.2.4Distribution of documentation

Documentation should be submitted to the Officer three weeks in advance of the event. Papers are sent out two weeks before the event is to be held. The relevant Deputy Dean or Chair may postpone the event if there is a serious delay in the papers being distributed or if, upon receipt of the papers, they deem the documentation to be unacceptable for the event to proceed.

A full set of papers is produced for the:

  • panel
  • programme leader for circulation to the programme team (as appropriate)

The agenda is sent, for information, to the:

  • School Quality Enhancement Manager (Validation and Review), AQS
  • Admissions Technical Development Manager
  • Director of Academic Partnerships (collaborative events only)
  • Regional Office, where applicable (overseas collaborative programmes only)

3.3.2.5The validation or review event

A validation event may cover one or more programmes in cognate areas and review events are normally arranged by cognate groups of programmes where possible. It is important to ensure an appropriate balance between the size of the provision to be scrutinised and the length of the validation or review in order that the panel may have sufficient time to consider all aspects in detail.

A suggested agenda is available in Appendix 3n or 3o. The following is a list of meetings which are likely to occur, but is not an agenda:

  • private Panel meeting
  • tour of facilities (if appropriate)
  • meeting with students and graduates (for reviews)
  • meeting with Senior School staff and programme teams
  • further private Panel meeting

Middlesex programmes which are not taught/assessed in English must follow the conditions listed in Guidance 5iii.

3.3.2.6MU Overseas campuses

Where reviews include provision delivered on a Middlesex University overseas campus, the review documentation will include the relevant campus handbook, resource statements and staff CVs relating to the programme(s) offered at the campus(es). A representative from each campus offering the programme(s) will be invited to attend the review event for meetings with the panel. Avideo/tele conference will take place with students and where necessary also with programme staff.

3.3.2.7Franchised programme reviews

For franchised programmes reviews will be held as follows:

  • All franchise partners and overseas campuses will take part in the periodic Review of the in-house programme and the event will include a resource statement, staff CVs, representation and feedback from all partners to which the programme is franchised, together with feedback from their students.
  • As well as being part of the periodic in-house review, franchise partners will also be reviewed on their own six yearly cycle. This review will consider, as far as practical, all franchised programmes at the partner institution, irrespective of the University lead School.

3.3.2.8Location

The Validation or Review will normally be held at the University for in-house programmes, and also for franchise and joint programmes. If the Review is conducted at the University, the Link Tutor and key staff from the partner institution attend the event and there must be satisfactory arrangements for assessment of student opinion of the programme.

The review of a validated collaborative programme would normally be held at the partner.

Where a programme is running on more than one site, the review can be held at the main partner site, but key programme and teaching staff from all sites must attend the review event. Documentation will include resource statements from each of the sites offering the programme.Arrangements should be made for students from all sites to contribute to the event.

Where multi-site provision with a partner is complex, a resource visit may be required, as determined by AQS on a case-by-case basis. This will be undertaken by a senior member of School staff or a panel member, together with an external assessor.

3.3.2.9Franchised programmes and extended approval

The suggested agenda templates,Appendices 3n and 3o, detail consideration for all collaborative programmes but it is necessary to note that a University programme normally operates successfully at the University for at least two years before being considered for franchising. Therefore at a franchised validation it is not possible to make changes to the content of the programme which may be running elsewhere in the UK or overseas. The event would focus much more on administrative, resourcing and learning experience matters and should not contain conditions in relation to the academic content of the programme.

If APAC extends approval for higher levels of a qualification, parts of which have already been approved, a Validation could still be required (e.g. to franchise the 2nd year of a degree programme). The Panel should ensure that approval decisions are informed by full consideration of academic standards and the quality of the learning opportunities. The report records issues under these areas.

3.3.2.10Conditions, recommendations and length of approval

Once a new programme is validated, it is normally incorporated within the six-year School review cycle, and is subject to the University monitoring and audit. However, a panel can request a shorter period of time before review – the reasons for this should be clearly recorded in the validation report.

The panel can set the programme team conditions and recommendations as the outcome of the validation or review event. We define these as follows:

Condition: an important matter which the Panel believes would currently, or could potentially, put quality and/or standards at risk and which requires urgent corrective action or requires preventative corrective action (possibly through a longer term condition) or is a university requirement.

Recommendation: a matter which the Panel believes has the potential, if addressed, to enhance quality and/or further secure standards.

The possible outcomes of the event are as follows:

  1. Unconditional approval (without conditions, though perhaps with recommendations).
  2. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions;
  3. Approval subject to the meeting of conditions but for less than the standard 6 years;
  4. Rejected and referred back for further work.

Recommendations can be for (a) to (c) above, but do not have to be met in order for the programme to run although they do have to be considered and addressed.

Following notification of a successful validation or review event, Appendix 3u, should be completed by the services with responsibility.

3.3.2.11Memorandum of Cooperation for Collaborative programmes

Before a collaborative programme can be offered and students enrolled, theMemorandum of Cooperation must be signed, with the Partnership Agreement already having beencompleted and signed. This applies after both a validation event for a new programme and a review event for a revalidated programme. Once the conditions have been met and the Chair has signed Part A of Confirmation of a Validation or Review (form 3e), the Officer will obtain a signature from the Director of Academic Partnerships, who will sign part B to declare that all necessary parts of the MoC have been completed and signed by both Middlesex University and the partner institution.

The MoC, including its Administrative and Operational Annexe,is the contractual document governing the operation and management of the programme. No programme will be allowed to commence without a signed MoC and fully signed Confirmation of a Validation or Review form. In the case of a revalidation, no students can be recruited to the revalidated programme until the MoC and Confirmation of a Validation or Review form has been signed.

Once both parts A and B of the Confirmation Form have been signed the Officer can then circulate to those listed at the end of the Form. AQS retain a copy for University oversight.

3.3.2.12Validation of a resubmitted proposal

The Programme Leader acts on the action list from the referred back validation or review event. The revised, resubmitted papers include a covering document which lists in detail the action taken by the team to strengthen the resubmitted proposal, including any consultancy or staff development undertaken.

The Panel for a resubmitted event should normally have one original External Assessor and one new External Assessor and either the Chair or the University Representative from the original event.

3.3.2.13 Non recruitment

Validation approval will lapse if a programme does not recruit for two years in succession unless an extension is approved by APAC.

A list of programmes which have been suspended for two years will be presented to the last School committee and APAC meeting of each academic year to confirm whether they should be withdrawn. APAC will also agree the suspension of programmes for specific entry points, based on application numbers

3.3.2.14Validation of programmes to run at new sites of approved institutions

Programme validation will be combined with site approval, involving the same team (see section 5, 5.3.4.1). The overall purpose of validation remains as outlined in 3.1-3.4 and to ensure that arrangements at the new sites are sufficient for the successful delivery of the programme(s), including ensuring that adequate programme-specific resources are available to support the proposal;

A student handbook, CVs of staff responsible for delivery of teaching and a resource statement should be available to the panel. The panel will ensure that arrangements for managing multi-site delivery are appropriate to ensure comparability of the student experience and maintain quality and standards across all sites at which programmes are delivered.

3.3.2.15 Validation of programmes to run at approved sites of enhanced validated partnerswith multi-site operations

For institutions with enhanced validated status operating on multiple sites, the following process will apply for the approval of a programme to run at an approved site, where a programme in a cognate subject area is already offered at the site:

  1. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal through the relevant School-based Committee.
  2. Consideration and approval of the programme proposal from APAC.
  3. Where required by APAC, a site visit will be undertaken by a member of school-based staff to establish the appropriateness of the resources for delivery of the programme.
  4. Documentation - Programme handbook (or programme specification and Module Narratives), resource statement and staff CVs will be presented to an external assessor and School subject expert for their consideration and approval, and the outcome noted at the relevant School Committee. Where a site visit has taken place, a report on this will be provided to the external assessoras part of the documentation. AQSis then notified of the outcome.
  5. Appendix 3e should be signed by the Chair of the School Committee and this, together with a brief report should be sent to AQS.

Where a programme in a new subject area is to be offered, the above procedure will apply, but a site visit will be undertaken member of school-based staff.