UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AUDIT CPA 20 MARCH 2006 PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY PRES

1
UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICHCOLLABORATIVE
PROVISION AUDIT (CPA)20 MARCH 2006PURPOSE AND
METHODOLOGYPRESENTATION TO PARTNERS
2
Section 2 QAA Code of Practice

• The assurance of quality and standards in
  collaborative arrangementscreates particular
  challenges for awarding institutions in the
  management of the potential risks associated with
  such arrangements.
• 2

3
Collaborative provision audit

• It focuses on how an awarding institution
  (AI) discharges its responsibilities for what is
  done in its name, and under its authority,
  through a collaborative arrangement with a
  partner organisation.
• (An awarding institution) should be able to
  satisfy itself, and stakeholders, on a regular
  basis that any delegated responsibility is being
  properly discharged. An awarding institution
  needs to consider carefully the distinction
  between responsibility for some aspects of
  quality management, which it may choose to
  delegate, and the responsibility for the security
  of the standard of the award, which remains with
  it at all times.
• 3

4
Process

• scrutiny of an awarding institutions systems
  and procedures for assuring quality of provision
  and maintaining academic standards of awards in
  CP, is combined with scrutiny of how these
  systems and procedures are given practical effect
  by partner organisations.
• 4

5
CPA examines three areas

• the effectiveness of the AIs procedures, the way
  in which the programmes are reviewed, and how it
  satisfies itself that the resulting
  recommendations are implemented
• the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the
  information the AI publishes
• several examples of the AIs processes as given
  effect by individual partnership arrangements
• 5

6
CPA teams focus in particular on

• selection and approval processes (strategy)
• internal reviews and outcomes
• use made of external reference points i.e.
  external examiners, external reviewers and
  Academic Infrastructure (Subject Benchmark
  Statements FHEQ Code of Practice and Programme
  Specifications).
• publicly available information (TQI/HERO)
• management of information
• expected academic standards
• experience of students as learners
• role of AI in assuring quality in CP of teaching
  staff
• 6

7
Teams

• will comprise between four and six auditors and
  an audit secretary
• will include members with experience and
  expertise in the management of quality and
  standards in CP
• an assistant director from the Agency will
  coordinate the audit
• 7

8
Timeline of process

• 36 PRELIMINARY METING - WEEK COMMENCING 4 JULY
  2005
• 32 confirmation of size of team and number of
  links
• 18 SED TO BE RECEIVED BY QAA WEEK COMMENCING 7
  NOVEMBER 2005
• 16 confirmation of partner links to be visited
• 8 receipt of additional information on links by
  QAA
• 6 BRIEFING VISIT WEEK COMMENCING 30 JANUARY
  2006
• visits to partner links between briefing visit
  and audit visit
• 0 AUDIT VISIT WEEK COMMENCING 20 MARCH 2006
• 2 findings letter received by institution
• 8 draft report to institution
• 14 comments on report received by QAA
• 20 statement received from institution
• 22 report is published
• 8

9
Selection of partners up to 6

• Number will depend on
• overall size of AIs portfolio of CP
• variety of formal arrangements
• nature of the AIs arrangements for managing CP
• 9

10
Partner information

• No partner SEDs
• Most recent agreement
• Details of AI approval of partner
• For a sample of programmes most recent annual
  and periodic review reports and most recent
  programme approval 2 most recent external
  examiners reports and institutional responses.
• 10

11
Briefing visit

• Meetings with
• Senior representatives from the AI
• Senior representatives from partners
• Student officers of AI where they can represent
  the views of students studying with partners
• 11

12
Visits to partners

• Meetings with
• senior members of the partner
• students studying for AIs awards
• partners teaching and support staff involved in
  supporting the link operationally
• 12

13
Visits to partners provides information on

• use of the academic infrastructure
• student feedback
• part played by students in QA processes
• accuracy of published information
• staff development
• 13

14
Audit Visit

• Up to a maximum of five days
• Programme agreed at the end of the briefing visit
• Opportunity to review the outcomes of visits to
  partners
• Hold discussions with members of AI
• 14

15
Judgements - I

• the confidence that can reasonably be placed in
  the soundness of the awarding institutions
  present and likely future management of the
  academic standards of its awards made through
  collaborative arrangements
• the confidence that can reasonably be placed in
  the present and likely future capacity of the
  awarding institution to satisfy itself that the
  learning opportunities offered to students
  through its collaborative arrangements are
  managed effectively and meet its requirements.
• 15

16
Judgements - II

• the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the
  accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness
  of the information that an awarding institution
  publishes (or authorises to be published) about
  the quality of the programmes offered through CP
  that lead to its awards and the standards of
  those awards.
• 16