RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. AQA to Ensure the accuracy of the terms of reference of the End of year review of university and college committees, undertake and quality assurance committees and associated governance manual (part of annual report to Academic report any documentary guidance (Expectation A2.1) Level of Board in June) revisions risk: Low Review and annual update of committee terms of reference through to be undertaken by University committee administrators relevant 1.25 The review team noted the use of some Annual update and publication of AQA Manual owning potentially misleading terminology in the terms of Meetings to take place between Chairs of Sec and ASQAC university reference of some committees and inaccuracy in some and Executive Deans to agree revised format and content committees. associated guidance. [Evidence 121, 199, 005 para 7.1] of college committee assurance reports to university Revisions in It also noted that the University has embedded committees place for mechanisms to review the effectiveness of its That the timing of college committees be reviewed in September 15 committees and an intention to review aspects of its liaison with the Executive Deans academic governance at the end of the current academic year. [Evidence 124, 121], The review team recommends that, by September 2015, the University ensures the accuracy of the terms of reference of the quality assurance committees and the associated documentary guidance. 2. GM Ensure the consistent implementation of the Revised policy of on minimum university expectations Implementation revised policy on personal tutoring (Expectation around personal tutoring now agreed by SEC for from B4) Level of risk: Low implementation in September 2015 September 15 Communication and staff development to implement and 2.48 The review team heard from students that there is support the embedding of agreed minimum standards inconsistency in the application of the personal tutor Update to be made to Personal Tutor Handbook to reflect system [meeting 4 and 5]. Students in small cohorts are revised university policy. happy with the level of personal support received, which may or may not be from a personal tutor, but there is variance for larger cohorts with some students reporting not ever having met their personal tutor [meeting 5]. The review team recommends that, by September 2015, the
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Ensure the accuracy of the terms of reference of the quality assurance committees and associated documentary guidance (Expectation A2.1) Level of risk: Low 1.25 The review team noted the use of some potentially misleading terminology in the terms of reference of some committees and inaccuracy in some associated guidance. [Evidence 121, 199, 005 para 7.1] It also noted that the University has embedded mechanisms to review the effectiveness of its committees and an intention to review aspects of its academic governance at the end of the current academic year. [Evidence 124, 121], The review team recommends that, by September 2015, the University ensures the accuracy of the terms of reference of the quality assurance committees and the associated documentary guidance. End of year review of university and college committees, governance manual (part of annual report to Academic Board in June) Review and annual update of committee terms of reference to be undertaken by University committee administrators Annual update and publication of AQA Manual Meetings to take place between Chairs of Sec and ASQAC and Executive Deans to agree revised format and content of college committee assurance reports to university committees That the timing of college committees be reviewed in liaison with the Executive Deans AQA to undertake and report any revisions through relevant owning university committees. Revisions in place for September 15 2. Ensure the consistent implementation of the revised policy on personal tutoring (Expectation B4) Level of risk: Low 2.48 The review team heard from students that there is inconsistency in the application of the personal tutor system [meeting 4 and 5]. Students in small cohorts are happy with the level of personal support received, which may or may not be from a personal tutor, but there is variance for larger cohorts with some students reporting not ever having met their personal tutor [meeting 5]. The review team recommends that, by September 2015, the Revised policy of on minimum university expectations around personal tutoring now agreed by SEC for implementation in September 2015 Communication and staff development to implement and support the embedding of agreed minimum standards Update to be made to Personal Tutor Handbook to reflect revised university policy. GM Implementation from September 15