Circular letter CL 03/04

Number	CL 03/04
Subject	Draft revised Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision, flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)
Publication date	26 January 2004
Recipients	Heads of higher education institutions and heads of academic quality assurance
Of interest to	Individuals with institutional responsibilities for quality assurance, collaborative partnerships, overseas partnerships, flexible and distributed learning, and e-learning
Further information	David Buckingham – d.buckingham@qaa.ac.uk
Response date	26 March 2004
Respond to	Sue Ibberson – s.ibberson@qaa.ac.uk
Attachments	Draft revised Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision, flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)

Dear Colleague

Draft revised Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision, flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)

I am writing to let you know that draft proposals for the revision of the section of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code) dealing with collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), are now available on the Agency's web site at www.qaa.ac.uk/public/COP/cprovis/draft/contents.htm. The draft has been prepared with the help of representatives from the sector and has also been the subject of extensive informal consultation with a wide range of practitioners in the field.

In line with recommendations from the Better Regulation Review Group, the guidance sections of the current edition have been replaced by explanatory text indicating why the individual precepts have been included. I hope these changes will help to emphasise that the Code should be regarded as a reference to widely agreed approaches to good practice in the relevant areas, not as a document specifying required compliance by institutions.

In accordance with our normal practice, we want to ensure that all institutions have an opportunity to see and, if they wish, to comment upon the draft. There is no obligation on institutions to respond to the draft proposals, but if you wish to comment your response will be taken into account when the final version is prepared.

I should be grateful if responses could be sent to Sue Ibberson, QAA, Southgate House, Southgate Street, Gloucester GL1 1UB, or email s.ibberson@qaa.ac.uk, by Friday 26 March 2004.

Yours sincerely

Peter Williams

Chief Executive