Introduction
1 This is the report of an audit, carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education (QAA), of the quality assurance arrangements for a partnership
between the University of Bradford (hereafter referred to as the University)
and the Institute for Integrated Learning in Management Undergraduate Business
School, New Delhi, India (hereafter referred to as the Institute) for the purpose
of offering the programme of study in India leading to the award of the University's
BSc (Hons) programme in Business and Management Studies.
2 This audit was one of four undertaken in October 1997, covering a range of overseas collaborative partnerships which UK higher education institutions have established in India. In each case, visits were made to both the UK and partner institutions.
3 The quality assurance arrangements of the University were the subject of an audit by the CVCP Academic Audit Unit in July 1992. (See below paragraph 10).
4 The Agency is grateful to the staff and students of the University and
of the
Institute for their assistance to, and co-operation with, the audit team.
The audit process
5 Prior to the audit visit, the University provided QAA with briefing documents
comprising an overview specially prepared for the audit, supported by copies
of reports, handbooks, a memorandum of understanding and other materials
describing the establishment and development of the partnership.
6 The audit team requested a number of supplementary documents relating to the planning and approval process for the franchise, and to the development and management of the partnership, including minutes of meetings of the University's quality assurance committees.
7 In preparation for the visit to the Institute, members of the audit team visited the University of Bradford Management Centre (UBMC) on 28 July 1997. Discussions took place between the team and a number of University staff, including the Pro Vice-Chancellor (External Relations), the Director of the Centre, its Chair of Teaching Quality and Systems, the Overseas Programme Manager, members of the Academic Secretary's Office and the Director of the International Office. Two of the Centre's staff involved in discussions had visited the Institute on several occasions during the establishment and development of the partnership.
8 The audit team visited the Institute on 13 October 1997 and held discussions
with approximately 40 people, including the Chair of the Academic Council,
the Chairperson of the Institute's Executive Council, the Dean and Dean
Emeritus of the Institute, and its Vice-President (Finance). The team also
met a number of students enrolled on the University's BSc (Hons) programme
in Business and Management Studies, from both the Lodhi Road and Badarpur
campuses, including some planning to spend a year studying at Bradford.
The team met a number of Institute support staff during the visit, including
the Student Counsellor, Manager of Finance and Accounts, the Controller
of Examinations, the Librarian and the Systems Administrator.
9 The audit team comprised Professor G Chesters, Mr V Core, Mr J Morgan, auditors
and Ms G Clarke, audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated for QAA by Mr D
W Parry, Acting Deputy Director of the Quality Assurance Group, who accompanied
the team to India.
The background to the partnership
10 The Report of an Academic Audit of the University of Bradford published
by the CVCP Academic Audit Unit in July 1992 did not consider the University's
arrangements for collaborative provision, which at the time were limited in extent.
Since 1992 these have developed in an incremental manner through specific agreements
with each collaborating institution, building on what the University regarded
as good internal practice. However, in June 1996 Senate adopted Quality Assurance
Arrangements for Offsite Activities and then in June 1997 Quality Assurance
for Overseas Collaboration and Other Off-site Activities which consolidated
experience since 1992 into a policy and procedural framework for collaboration.
The collaboration with the Institute was developed in parallel with these discussions
and was approved before they came into operation. However, staff developing the
collaboration were represented in the discussions on the new arrangements and,
in addition, specifically consulted the first edition of the Higher Education
Quality Council's (HEQC) Code of Practice on Overseas Collaborative Provision.
11 The Institute itself was established in 1993 as a postgraduate business school by the Group Usha which has extensive industrial and commercial interests in India. It initially had two centres, in New Delhi and in Calcutta, and has since opened two further centres in Badarpur and in Navi Mumbai. The Institute was set up under the aegis of Ram Krishan and Sons Charitable Trust and has a single governing body and academic councils at each of its centres.
12 The University's policy on off-site operations stresses the paramount importance of ensuring that these both meet, and are seen to meet, the University's requirements relating to quality and standards. It is 'the responsibility of both partners to ensure comparability of the learning experience, equivalence in academic standards and the proper enforcement of the principle of Duty of Academic Care for all students registered on University of Bradford courses, wherever taught' (University of Bradford's Quality Assurance Handbook - section 9.1 - August 1997 edition). It identifies two main categories of operation: income-generating, in which students do not normally study at Bradford, and recruitment-orientated, in which the main objective is to recruit students to courses in Bradford. The collaboration with the Institute is in the former category. However, the University has a clear principle that any student registered on a University course, wherever it is delivered, has the automatic right to transfer to the appropriate course in Bradford. UBMC sees the extension of its portfolio of overseas courses as a way of expanding its international involvement in business and management education which is itself becoming more international. The policy also supports the University's strategy of raising its international profile to enhance direct recruitment to Bradford.
13 The link was initiated by the Institute, which decided in 1995 to extend its provision into the undergraduate business field and wished to offer a degree level course. After written approaches to the University, a representative from the Institute visited UBMC in March 1996. Following this meeting two staff from UBMC visited the Institute's New Delhi centre in April 1996 to report on its facilities, and UBMC sought further information on the Institute. As a result of these enquiries, UBMC decided to seek University approval to franchise the BSc (Hons) in Business and Management Studies to the Institute's Undergraduate Business School for student entry in July 1996.
Initial validation and approval process
14 Although at the time of the development of this collaboration the University
had not codified its quality assurance procedures for off-site activities,
it expected that proposals for such activities, using a pro forma,
would be approved by the relevant faculty board on academic grounds; by
the University's Academic Review and Resources Committee (ARRC), taking
into account resource criteria; and then by the Academic Policy Committee
(APC) which considered the results of all those deliberations before recommending
the proposal to Senate. In its document, Quality Assurance Arrangements
for Off-site Activities, the University distinguished between the validation
of courses devised by other institutions and the franchising of University
courses to other locations but the same pro forma (which was required by
the ARRC) was used for both types of link. This asked for information on
student numbers and the financial arrangements, for the names of link persons
at the University and the collaborating institution, and for reassurances
concerning the need for governmental authority in the country involved
for the collaboration to proceed. It also asked for the rationale for the
collaboration. The requirements for information on the collaborating institution
were brief and did not, for example, ask for details of learning facilities,
learning support or staffing. No statement on the period of validity of
the proposed collaboration was required.
15 Responsibility for the development of the initial stages of the collaboration rested with UBMC. The Centre wrote to the British Council in India to enquire about the academic credentials of the Institute. Other informal enquiries with contacts both in the UK and India satisfied UBMC that the Institute was a suitable partner with which to collaborate. This was subsequently confirmed by the University's International Office. In April 1996 two staff from UBMC visited the New Delhi campus of the Institute to inspect the facilities and hold further discussions. They reported orally to UBMC that the partnership should proceed and the Chair of the APC was then informed. The proposal was to franchise all three years of the BSc (Hons) in Business and Management Studies to the New Delhi campus of the Institute. This was approved by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Board and by the ARRC (by Chair's action) in May, and by the APC and by the Senate in June 1996. Subsequently in August 1996 one of the original UBMC visitors and the Senior Administrative Officer of the Management Centre went to the Navi Mumbai centre and to the Badarpur campus. Following university procedures and on the basis of an oral report the Chair of the APC took Chair's action to sanction immediate delivery of the course at Navi Mumbai. Following a further visit by the same member of staff to the Badarpur campus in February 1997, and an oral report on this visit, Chair's action was taken to sanction this extension of the partnership for a June 1997 start.
16 In reflecting on this process of approval, and on the speed with which it occurred, the audit team found it difficult to understand how the University had been in a position to be sufficiently familiar with the Institute to be satisfied that it would meet the requirements likely to be placed upon it to assure quality and standards. It is recognised that whilst others visited the Institute, approval, both by the relevant committees and more usually by the Chair of APC or ARRC, was based on the oral assurances of a single member of staff who also had the responsibility of developing the partnership. The proposal that was considered at the time of the initial approval contained assurances only on the suitability of the Institute but no written information on its facilities or staff and there seems to have been no consultation with the staff of the library or computing services at the University. In fact, the audit team was satisfied, after its discussions in India, that a proper examination of facilities had been conducted and that documentary evidence was available to support this.
17 The potential weaknesses of this process have been recognised by the
University in its recently adopted Quality Assurance for Overseas Collaboration
and other 0ff-Site Activities. This document provides for a two-stage
approval procedure. The first stage involves in-principle approval by the
relevant faculty board and the ARRC, based on the report of a visit by
staff from the University department involved. The second stage consists
of full approval by the relevant faculty board and the APC, based on a
report of a visit by another representative of the department and a member
of staff from another department. Both stages require Senate approval.
The audit team noted, however, that although the approval of the extension
of the collaboration to the Badarpur centre post-dated the adoption of
an earlier version of these procedures, they were not used. The University
acknowledged that the new procedures do not provide for the approval of
extensions of collaborations to new sites, and that the manner of the approvals
in the case of the Institute needed tightening. The team was told that
modification of the procedures to deal with such extensions was now under
consideration.
Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding
18 The development of a formal agreement went in parallel with the approval process outlined above. In the absence at that time of a University model agreement, the terms of the Agreement were developed jointly by the two parties. The resulting Agreement, signed in October 1996, closely mirrors the University's model agreement adopted in June 1997. The main omission from both the formal Agreement and the University's model agreement is any specific and detailed reference to monitoring and review procedures, as outlined in the HEQC's Code of Practice on Overseas Collaborative Provision, although it appears to have been clear to all parties that the University's procedures would be used. While there is provision for the termination of the Agreement, and a commitment that students will be allowed to complete the course in these circumstances, it is not made clear in the Agreement who is responsible for ensuring this. The University assured the audit team that it would meet this responsibility, if necessary by subsidising the students' study in the UK, and the Institute told the team that it was equally committed to enabling students to complete their degree. While the Agreement does not provide for a review after a specified period, the model agreement contains provision for a biennial review.
19 The Institute also attached great importance to the signing by both
parties of a Memorandum of Understanding. This usefully spells out
in more detail the recruitment, assessment and course delivery arrangements,
along with commitments to staff development and student exchange. The Memorandum was
intended to secure long-term stability in the partnership, particularly
when the originators were no longer involved. The University may wish to
consider the advisability of adopting this as a model for other partnerships
so that both parties are clear about their obligations in detail. It might
also be appropriate to add to such memoranda specific reference to monitoring
and review arrangements.
Recognition of the award in India
20 Students must register both for the BSc with the University and for
the Institute's undergraduate Diploma in Business Management. The courses
are identical except that the Diploma course contains additional Total
Personality Development modules delivered by Institute staff. Neither course
is currently recognised in India by the university or government authorities.
This is an important issue for students, many of who wish to study for
an MBA, after obtaining their degree, at a recognised Indian institute
or university. The audit team was told in India that these institutions
will not, currently, accept the degree for entry purposes.
21 In April 1996, when UBMC discussed the proposed collaboration with the British
Council in India and with a representative of the Association of Indian Universities,
it did not appear that the recognition of the degree would be a matter for concern.
Subsequently, however, concerns were raised by Indian authorities and, at the
Institute's request, the University wrote to the relevant authorities to inform
them of the partnership and request recognition of the degree for entry to postgraduate
study. The request outlined the measures both partners were taking to ensure
that the standard of the award was identical in Bradford and in India. The University's
case was strengthened by its commendable commitment to accept unconditionally
students from the course at the Institute to the appropriate point in the course
at Bradford. Students who met the audit team were aware of this commitment and
arrangements for a number of students to study at Bradford in 1998 were well
advanced. At the time of the final audit visit the University had not, however,
received a reply to its letter.
22 In the light of the foregoing, the wording of the degree certificate is significant. With the support of the Institute, the University does not intend to state that the degree has been obtained by study in India. This is consistent with its firm view that the degree is identical in standard to the degree obtained by study in Bradford and that to differentiate the degree certificate in any way would weaken this fundamental principle. The University is, however, invited to reconsider whether it is, in reality, misleading not to state the place of study in the terms outlined in the HEQC's Code of Practice on Overseas Collaborative Provision, particularly given the specific Indian context of the issue of recognition just discussed.
Arrangements for programme monitoring and review
23 As noted in paragraph 18 above, the Agreement with the Institute did
not specify the course monitoring arrangements to be followed and did not
provide for a periodic review of the partnership. Discussions with University
staff indicated, however, that the Institute was expected to complete a
University annual monitoring report, in the same way as for all University
courses, for consideration by the Faculty Courses Committee. It is the
responsibility of the Teaching Committee of UBMC to ensure that any issues
identified in the monitoring process are dealt with. At the time of the
audit visit, the Institute was aware that an annual report was required
but had not received the relevant guidelines from the University. There
appeared to be some confusion about the nature of the expected report,
with staff at the Institute anticipating the completion of a report for
each centre, and the University expecting a single report covering all
of them. The respective responsibilities of the University link person
and the Institute in drawing up the report were also unclear to the team.
The University may consider that this confusion strengthens the case for
a more explicit description of monitoring procedures within its model agreement
as discussed in paragraph 19 above.
24 The Institute has established its own monitoring procedures. Students meet senior staff each week and there is regular student feedback on individual modules which is analysed and the results sent to the University.
25 University procedures provide for the appointment of a link person for each collaboration and this person has visited the Institute on four occasions since the Agreement was concluded. He was, on one occasion, accompanied by a member of the administrative staff to advise on administrative matters. These visits have clearly been very valuable to the Institute and appreciated by staff and students who receive briefings on a wide range of issues. Reports on the two most recent visits have been discussed within UBMC. The University might consider the value of formalising this reporting mechanism, both to monitor the collaboration and as a record which could brief any successor to the current link person. In the audit team's view, the liaison arrangements for administrative and financial matters are firmly in place.
Arrangements for the assessment of students
Examination arrangements
26 The assessment arrangements are intended to mirror exactly those of the course delivered in Bradford in terms of the balance of examinations and other assessments, but separate papers and other assignments are set because the timing of assessment is different in India from that in the UK. It was also recognised that assessments would have to reflect the Indian context where this is different from that of the UK. The original intention was for Institute staff to set the assessments subject to the approval of UBMC staff. On the insistence of the Vice-Chancellor, however, the arrangement was changed to place the responsibility for producing the papers on UBMC staff.
27 The arrangement approved in the Memorandum of Understanding is for Institute staff to send suggested questions to UBMC whose staff then construct the final question papers. Discussions with Institute staff, subsequently confirmed by the University, suggested that this procedure was not being followed in that Institute staff send draft question papers to UBMC staff who then moderate them. Institute staff have access to past papers and this procedure seems to have worked reasonably well, in that the audit team was told that few changes were made to the papers proposed by the Institute. UBMC staff provide feedback to Institute staff when changes are made. The team noted, however, the apparent discrepancies between procedures and practice, and in view of the fact that the University's most recent Draft Contractual Agreement for a Franchised Course clearly states that the University will set all assessments for such courses, the University may wish to clarify the assessment arrangements for this particular link.
28 Strict security arrangements are in place for copying examination papers and for their distribution to the three centres. The audit team found, however, some differences of view within the University on the matter of maintaining the confidentiality of such papers from Institute staff, which the team believes is now in need of resolution. The examinations are conducted in accordance with University procedures.
29 Examination scripts are first marked at the Institute and then all are
moderated by UBMC staff whose mark prevails if there is a difference. Institute
staff are given feedback on their marking; indeed, one of the University's
link person's visits was largely devoted to briefing staff and students
on examination arrangements. Initially, the Institute set and marked the
course work and samples were sent to UBMC. UBMC was, however, not satisfied
that the course work set was to the required standard, and sent examples
of the University degree course work to the Institute. Staff at UBMC now
consider and approve course work set by Institute staff.
30 The University's Board of Examiners considers the performance of Institute
students at a separate meeting in Bradford. The University's procedures
provide for the presence of a representative from a partner institution
such as the Institute at these meetings, but no such representative attended
the first meeting of the Board in June 1997. The University assured the
audit team that this would be remedied for the next meeting. The meeting
of the Examination Board to consider the performance and progression of
Institute students was attended by only two members of staff. While the
University does not lay down any quorum for these meetings, it expects
attendance by representatives from the department responsible for each
unit of study. The University is invited to consider how this might be
applied in the case of this link so that student progression and the assessment
process are both subject to an adequate level of scrutiny. A new University Administrative
Regulation Relating to Assessment provides for the establishment of
assessment committees to consider, inter alia, comparability of
standards between units, and the University may wish to consider the relevance
of these committees to this collaboration.
31 The external examiners for the course are not normally involved in year one assessments. The audit team understands, however, that they will be briefed on their roles in respect of this programme for the second-year assessments in 1997-98. The team was told that they would play the same role as for the UK course, approving question papers and moderating samples of examination and course work, and that they were currently involved with the preparation of year two examination papers.
Student experience
Student admission
32 Student admissions are conducted by Institute staff following an interview
procedure; minimum entry requirements are laid down by the University.
No lower or upper limits on the number of students to be enrolled are laid
down in the Agreement, but the audit team was told that cohorts of 60 are
the expected norm. The University states that it would expect to be consulted
if numbers rose significantly above this. It became apparent, however,
that the second cohort at the Delhi centre comprised 102 students and that
the link person in the University was not aware of this some three months
after the course had started, although the information had been received
in the University. Students follow the University course without variation,
except in cases such as law, where the syllabus reflects Indian legal arrangements.
In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, UBMC supplies
an extensive range of curriculum delivery materials which are much appreciated
by staff and students at the Institute.
33 The course contains a high number of option modules in years two and
three and the academic approval of the franchise does allow for some reduction
in the number offered in India if appropriate staff expertise is not available.
The audit team was assured that all options were, in principle, available
at each centre and that staff and learning support would be provided if
necessary. Second year students at the New Delhi centre felt that the options
available to them were relevant and had not been significantly circumscribed
by a minimum option class size of 15. The team noted, however, that the
first cohort at Navi Mumbai contained only five students, and at Badarpur
20 students, and wondered how, in the light of these low figures, the provision
of options would be maintained in years two and three. The team learnt
that at Navi Mumbai the students were being taught their options separately
by the staff of the Postgraduate Business School. The link person was aware
of this solution to the problem, but it was not clear to the team whether
this matter, important for the comparability of the students' learning
experience, had been monitored at faculty or University level. The team
also learnt that the second Navi Mumbai cohort comprised only five students.
Again, the University was apparently unaware of this figure. The University
acknowledged that it had given too little consideration to the implications
of low student numbers when approving the extensions to these centres,
and that such consideration would be incorporated in future procedures.
It may also wish to consider further how student intakes might be monitored
so that their implications for the student experience can be considered
well in advance and any consequential modifications to the delivery of
a course approved.
34 Students are provided with a handbook, prepared by the Institute, which
provides some general information on course organisation and the UBMC guidelines
on examinations and on plagiarism. They also receive detailed workbooks
from UBMC on modules and their assessment. Students at the Institute have
the same rights regarding complaints and appeals as other students registered
at the University, and both staff and students at the Institute are clear
about the procedure to be followed. Institute students have been informed
of their rights by the Institute's Student Counsellor, and the UBMC link
person discussed the issue with students on one of his visits. The University
is to be commended for the efforts it makes to ensure that students based
at the Institute feel themselves to be part of the University, reinforced
by the receipt by students of a University Card.
Library and learning resources
35 Each of the three campuses is a separate entity so far as the provision
of library and other learning resources is concerned and has been approved
by the University for the delivery of all three years of the course. UBMC
has provided significant help in strengthening the library and IT support
through advice and the provision of books and software. The partners work
closely together to ensure that both set texts and general reading are
available to students.
Staffing and staff development
36 As indicated in paragraphs 14 and 17 respectively, the University did not have written information on the qualifications and experience of Institute staff either in the initial approval of the collaboration or in its subsequent extension to other centres. The new procedures require this information at the full proposal stage. The Agreement lays on the Institute the obligation to appoint academic staff who meet the standard specified by the University. The procedures for this are not specified, but the understanding is that all staff teaching on the programme are interviewed by senior Institute staff and undergo a probationary period. Their curricula vitae are sent to the University where they are scrutinised and approved by the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. The audit team found, however, that a number of staff listed as teaching on the course, including some whom the team met in India, had not been approved by the University in the manner prescribed.
37 The University has recognised, in part, the unsatisfactory nature of this aspect of the approval process by seeking information on staffing within its new procedures. The University acknowledges, however, that it is unclear from these procedures how the staffing implications of the addition of a new centre to an existing collaboration will be dealt with. Additional staff for an existing collaboration may be approved by the Dean of Faculty, and this is how staff on the Badarpur campus were approved. The University is invited to reconsider this approach as part of its development of procedures to oversee the extension of existing partnerships. The University is also invited to re-examine the operation of its procedures for approving staff appointments. Such a re-examination might cover procedures for monitoring staff performance. The Institute itself has in place a staff monitoring system based on student feedback and the results for the first semester of the first cohort were sent to the University. The link person then discussed them with Institute staff.
38 The Memorandum of Understanding includes a commitment to providing staff development opportunities for academic and administrative staff of the Institute, including visits to UBMC; few such opportunities appear yet to have been provided. The University's link person provides advice to Institute staff on the delivery of the curriculum and on assessment, and on one occasion he was accompanied by an administrator from UBMC; the link person at the Institute has also visited UBMC. Staff at the Institute are aware of the University's commitment to assist in their development and many now wish to extend their research and consultancy to support delivery of the course at honours degree level. A practical contribution to this is the effort being made to establish an e-mail link with the Institute. Discussions on reciprocal visits by staff have begun. The audit team would encourage the University to give effect to the clause on staff development in the Memorandum of Understanding in the interests of enhancing the quality of course delivery at the Institute, and in pursuit of its broader aims for international collaboration.
Publicity and promotional materials
39 The head of the University department responsible for a collaborative
link is required to scrutinise all publicity material produced by an overseas
partner, and the model agreement used places upon the overseas partner
the obligation to submit such material to the University. In the view of
the audit team, the Institute has followed the procedure scrupulously.
The team did note, however, that an Institute brochure contained a list
of 'core faculty', some of whom had not been approved by the University
(See above paragraph 36).
Conclusions and points for further consideration
40 The strength of the University of Bradford's approach to overseas
collaboration derives from its commitment to 'ensure comparability of the
learning experience, equivalence in academic standards and the proper enforcement
of the principle of Academic Care for all students registered on University
of Bradford courses, wherever taught'. This is well exemplified in the
partnership with the Institute in the sense that both students and staff
at the Institute feel that they are participating in a University of Bradford
course. Staff at the Institute have been appropriately supported in the
delivery and assessment of the curriculum, and communication between the
University and the Institute is regular and effective. Students are aware
of the University's commitment to admit them automatically to the appropriate
point of the course at Bradford and appreciate the receipt of a student
card, a small but symbolic point. Another element of this stress on the
equivalence of the qualification is a degree certificate in the name of
the University of Bradford only. Whilst the audit team recognises the logic
of this stance and the University's commitment to it, the University is
invited to reconsider whether this decision may have to be tempered by
the implications of the attitude of the Indian authorities to the recognition
of UK degrees obtained by study in India.
Annex
Commentary on the audit report supplied by the
University of Bradford
In the period since the audit visit, the University's Quality Assurance Arrangements
for Off-Site Activities issued in June 1997 have been updated and reviewed
in the light of further experience. The opportunity was taken to include points
arising not only from this audit but also from the University's own off-site
provision in Dubai.
Paragraph 14. The University requirements currently, and also at the time of the audit, are for extensive supporting information to be provided in addition to the pro-forma. This information encompasses all of that listed in paragraph 14.
Paragraphs 17, 25. The University now requires a written record to be maintained of the discussions that take place during visits by members of one partner to the other. The procedures necessary when considering extensions to existing collaborative arrangements have been made explicit.
Paragraph 18. The agreement for the provision in India will be made consistent with the University's latest model agreement - which post-dates it - during the quinquennial review of the provision in India. This latest agreement makes explicit the responsibilities both for ensuring that the students are allowed to complete their programme of study and for monitoring and review.
Paragraph 19. Rather than providing a separate Memorandum of Co-operation, the University has decided to include additional detail in the Agreement itself. Specific reference to monitoring and review arrangements has also been added.
Paragraph 23. The responsibilities for annual course monitoring have been clarified: the University department compiles a single report with support from the partner institutions.
Paragraphs 26-28. The off-site examination and assessment arrangements have been reviewed to ensure continuing consistency with the new University regulations, and current practice and standards.
Paragraph 30. The role of an Assessment Committee included from its inception a responsibility to review the comparability of standards between both off-site and campus-based units.
It is not always possible for a representative of a partner institution to be present at examiners meetings. However, in such an eventuality, an appropriate person is available by telephone for such meetings. Additional staff who have been involved in the programme have attended Board of Examiners meetings in 1997-98.
Paragraph 32. The lower and upper limit on student numbers is now included specifically in each agreement with a partner institution. A requirement is included in the procedures to record and monitor actual recruited numbers, which is part of annual course monitoring, and for such numbers to be provided to the University.
Paragraphs 36-38. Procedures to ensure that staff are approved by the University as quickly as possible have been improved: IILM are required to submit any curricula vitae of new staff on appointment for approval, and to inform the University of any staff who leave. Staff development is now explicitly addressed in the procedures. Members of IILM have visited the University, attending lectures and tutorials.
Top