Higher Education Quality Council

HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIP AUDITS
UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
and
PERSON CENTRED APPROACH INSTITUTE, GREECE
DECEMBER 1996

ISBN 1 85824 338 6

PREFACE

The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) is collectively owned by the universities, colleges and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Established in 1992, the Council contributes to the maintenance and improvement of the quality and standards of the teaching, learning and student assessment for which these institutions are responsible, wherever and however academic programmes are offered. With this objective, HEQC undertakes regular academic quality audits of individual institutions to review the operation and effectiveness of arrangements for assuring quality and standards.

Quality audits also cover the arrangements which institutions use to assure the quality and standards of their awards and programmes offered in collaboration with other partners, both within and outside the UK. As part of this process, HEQC has extended the scope of audit to include visits to the overseas partners of UK institutions, thus enabling the same enquiries to be made outside the UK concerning arrangements for quality assurance and the safeguarding of standards of the academic awards made by UK institutions.

A pilot programme of visits was undertaken between April and June 1996 to a sample of overseas partner institutions offering programmes leading to the awards of 15 UK institutions. This initiative has been designed to consolidate confidence in the work of British universities and colleges operating outside the UK.

These audit enquiries were assisted by the publication in November 1995 of HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education. This offers guidance on good practice and a framework within which institutions can review and consider their current and future activities. The Code of Practice has been widely welcomed and has been used as a common point of reference for the pilot programme of overseas visits.

Although the Code assisted audit enquiries, we do not claim that it is a definitive check list. Audit teams did not use the pilot visits to 'measure' participating UK institutions' compliance with the Code, since it was recognised that institutions might be reviewing their practice following the appearance of Code. The Code of Practice has been revised in the light of the findings from the pilot visits, and comments received from UK institutions and their partners.

UK universities and colleges who volunteered to participate in the pilot programme of overseas visits did so with the agreement of their overseas partners. The participating institutions covered a range of collaborative links, involving a variety of subjects, programmes and awards.

This report is one of 20 reports published from the pilot programme. It should be read in conjunction with HEQC's published audit report(s) on the UK partner, reference to which is made in this report. In addition, HEQC has published a separate overview report summarising the general findings from the pilot visits and noting examples of good practice and areas where further development will improve and strengthen current arrangements.

Because the audits were pilots intended in part to test an evolving method, the Council considers that it would be mistaken to use the reports as the basis for unconditional generalisations about overseas partnerships developed by UK institutions.

INTRODUCTION

1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between the University of Strathclyde and the Person Centred Approach Institute (hereafter referred to as PCAI) to review how the University's quality assurance arrangements operate in respect of its Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling, which is delivered in Greek by its partner in Athens. The audit forms part of a series of pilot audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1996. The audit included a visit to PCAI in May 1996. The Council is grateful to the University of Strathclyde and to the Person Centred Approach Institute for their assistance and co-operation. Further information about these audits is contained on the inside cover of this report. Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the University, is attached as an annex to this report.

2 The academic quality assurance processes of the University were the subject of a report of the Academic Audit Unit of the CVCP in 1992. That report provided a record of, and comments on, the University's quality assurance procedures at that time in relation to the teaching and learning provision for which it was responsible in Glasgow. The University's quality assurance arrangements in relation to collaborative activities have not been the subject of a separate HEQC audit.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

3 Prior to the audit team's visit to Greece the University provided briefing documentation on its relationship with PCAI and on how the University's quality assurance arrangements operated with respect to the collaborative programme. The University agreed a series of meetings between the audit team and staff and students of PCAI. The audit team, which visited PCAI on 27 May 1996, comprised: Dr F R Burnett, Professor J E Forbes and Mr J D A McWilliam OBE, auditors. The report was co-ordinated for HEQC by Dr D W Cairns and Dr C J Haslam. Dr R J Brown, Chief Executive, HEQC, was present during the visit.

4 The audit team met the Director of PCAI, members of PCAI staff and students. In all, the team met more than 10 individuals, some on more than one occasion.

Abbreviations used in this report

5 In this report the following abbreviations are used:

AGSPEM (Senate) Advisory Group on Student Progress and Examination Monitoring;

AQAG (Senate) Academic Quality Assurance Group;

APC (Senate) Academic Practice Group;

Overseas Guidelines Guidelines for University Staff Developing Collaborative Academic Programmes with Overseas Institutions;

Course Approval Guidelines Guidelines for New Course Approval;

HEQC Code Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education;

PCAI Person Centred Approach Institute;

PDU Professional Development Unit of the Faculty of Education

Note on terminology

6 The University uses the term 'class' to refer to an element of a programme of study, and the term 'course' to refer to a programme of study.

THE BACKGROUND TO THE PARTNERSHIP

The University's systems and arrangements for quality assurance

7 The University has delegated much of the responsibility for operating and monitoring its academic quality assurance and quality control processes to its departments and faculties. Processes operated at faculty level and below include course and class approval and review, student assessment, and academic progress decisions. Faculties review the information provided by constituent departments in academic administration committees, examination boards and student appeals committees. Faculty academic administration committees are usually chaired by the vice dean (academic) of the faculty and are responsible for monitoring student progress at faculty level and for making recommendations to the faculty board and Senate with regard to the approval and review of programmes of study.

8 The vice deans (academic) are an important constituency within the University, communicating information on policy and practice in the quality assurance, quality control and quality enhancement of courses and classes between central University bodies and the faculties and departments and vice versa. The University vests a high degree of confidence and responsibility in individual teaching staff and course teams, as well as its deans and vice deans (academic). This confidence is reflected in a devolved culture in which the initial appointment and subsequent support of academic staff is a 'major element' of the University's quality assurance framework.

9 The vice deans (academic) are members of the three central committees which the University identifies as playing key supporting and monitoring roles in its institutional arrangements for academic quality assurance. These are the Senate Academic Practice Committee (APC); the Academic Quality Assurance Group (AQAG), which reports to the APC, and the Advisory Group on Student Progress and Examination Monitoring (AGSPEM). The APC meets on three or four occasions annually to review educational developments, quality enhancement and quality assurance. The AQAG meets five or six times annually to review the operation of the University's quality assurance arrangements and to consider their further development. The AGSPEM meets three times each year to monitor pass rates for undergraduate classes. Both the APC and the AGSPEM are chaired by the Pro Vice Principal, who is responsible for all matters relating to teaching quality. The University's Director of Academic Practice chairs the AQAG and is a focus for academic staff development within the University. The Academic Registrar and Registry staff support the work of the Senate, its committees and other central bodies of the University, and provide information and guidance on regulations and procedures to students and staff.

10 To complement its devolved culture, the University's higher level monitoring and control mechanisms have been designed to be 'additive and reinforcing rather than intrusive and antagonistic'. University-level processes, other Senate and Court Committees, and the University Management Group (UMG), do not seek to impose unnecessary burdens on staff but make selective use of available information, and use a variety of performance indicators to compare activities across departments and faculties. There is no systematic or detailed reporting on the outcomes of processes which deal with course and class level matters: consideration of such matters is located primarily at the level of the faculty. The University's view is that staff at each level of its quality assurance arrangements -department, faculty and University level - consider what is appropriate to them, and that the 'guidelines' which are periodically issued by the centre ensure a necessary minimum level of harmonisation of approach across faculties and departments. The guidelines constitute a primary means to disseminate good practice and to encourage quality enhancement. The departmental, faculty and University level procedures described above are applied to both home-based and overseas activities in the same way, wherever possible. The team learnt from University staff that its AQAG was considering how some measure of University-level monitoring of course review activities might be introduced without imposing unacceptable burdens on staff delivering courses. (see below, paragraph 23).

11 The University's present Faculty of Education under whose aegis the PCAI course is operated, was constituted when the former Jordanhill College amalgamated with the University in 1993. Some of the College's awards had previously been validated by the Council for National Academic Awards with whose systems and arrangements of which the College had close familiarity. In the period since the amalgamation, the Faculty of Education has progressively adjusted its quality assurance and quality control procedures to accord with the University's expectations and at the time of the audit its procedures for course and class validation, approval, review and monitoring were very close to those described in paragraphs 7 to 10, above.

12 The University's framework for collaborative provision is set out in its Guidelines for University Staff Developing Collaborative Academic Programmes with Overseas Institutions (hereafter, Overseas Guidelines). These were originally approved by the University Senate in October 1993 and in an updated and extended form in June 1996. They stress the part played by collaboration with overseas institutions in the achievement of the University's mission of 'useful learning'. In particular, the University seeks collaborations based on 'shared interests' in the provision of advanced courses, research and consultancy, and expects such collaborations to be 'mutually beneficial'.

Background to the partnership

13 In January 1994, the Director of PCAI wrote to the Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Strathclyde, asking whether it might be possible to validate the training programme for counsellors offered by the Institute to lead to a University award.

14 The approach to the University arose from preliminary discussion and collaboration with the Director of its Counselling Unit. These discussions had been initiated because of the similarity between the philosophies and structures of the training programmes offered by PCAI and the University's Counselling Unit. The response from the University was broadly positive but indicated that a number of quality assurance procedures would have to be built into any agreement finally reached with PCAI. Provisional estimates of the charges that the University would make, both for the setting up process and for each student applying to be assessed for the award of a postgraduate diploma, were also given at this initial stage.

Person Centred Approach Institute

15 PCAI was founded in 1989 by its current Director. It is a non profit making organisation, accountable to the Greek Department of Justice. Its mission is to train counsellors, provide lectures, seminars and workshops on personal and interpersonal development, and carry out research in this field. A particular objective is to establish a professional body within Greece that can offer accreditation to trained counsellors. PCAI has three core staff, together with graduates from previous courses working as trainees. Teaching is also provided by visitors from outside Greece. Its premises contain counselling rooms, study space, a library and a resource centre.

INITIAL APPROVAL AND VALIDATION PROCESSES

University procedures

16 The University is empowered under the terms of Item 4B of its Charter to validate courses of other institutions, subject to the proper approvals by Senate and other bodies, without making staff and students of those institutions members of the University.

17 The Overseas Guidelines set out the University's normal expectation that the first step in initiating a collaborative venture will be a visit by one or more members of staff, so that it may assure itself of the integrity and standing of its potential partner. Subsequently, the relationship is to be supported by 'staff visits and regular exchange of information', and through feedback obtained from external examiners. The Overseas Guidelines cede considerable individual scope to members of staff 'to make appropriate arrangements to suit the prevailing circumstances', but also require certain quality assurance safeguards. The Overseas Guidelines set out the University's expectation that 'Departments and Faculties...[should]...satisfy themselves that the quality of courses and the standard of awards delivered overseas in the University's name are comparable to that within the University'. As a minimum 'Senate expects Departments to satisfy themselves in five main areas...Institutional standing and quality assurance arrangements...Entry level...Course curriculum...Methods of assessment.[and]...Quality of staff and staff development'. In submitting an overseas collaborative arrangement for signature by the Principal of the University, those responsible for the development of the course are required to certify in writing that 'the academic/financial/legal implications of this document have been fully considered by myself and found satisfactory'.

18 The University's general requirements for the approval of new courses are set out in its Guidelines for New Course Approval (hereafter, Course Approval Guidelines) which were provided to the audit team. At the level of the course, there is a two-stage scrutiny process, the first element of which consists of preliminary meetings and inquiries, the second element being the validation event. The Course Approval Guidelines set out what the validation process must ensure, and indicate that the format of the event can be flexible, but that activities should normally include a tour of the campus and relevant facilities and meetings with students, senior managers, the team that has developed the proposal, and the proposed lecturing staff. The Course Approval Guidelines specify four possible outcomes from a validation event, one of which is unconditional approval for a set period of time, and sets out the reporting path from the validation panel to the relevant faculty board and finally to the University's Senate.

19 In the case of PCAI, the preliminary meeting and the validation event prescribed by the Course Approval Guidelines both took place at the University and were attended by the Director, two staff members and a member of the Board of Directors of PCAI. The validation panel recommended that the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling proposed by PCAI be approved for a period of five years.

20 This recommendation was accepted by the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty of Education, the Faculty Board of which resolved that it should also receive a report on specific issues raised by the validation panel by its first meeting during the 1995-96 academic year. The Senate accepted the recommendation and, subject to the approval of course regulations, approved the collaboration with effect from September 1995. The Senate was not informed of the Faculty Board's resolution to require a report on specified matters by a designated time. The Senate granted formal approval for the collaborative course in September 1995.

21 The validation panel did not discuss whether students already enrolled on the existing PCAI course would be able to enter the newly validated course with advanced standing. However, the staff at PCAI had been working to adapt their course to fit into a tighter academic framework since early 1994 to allow convergence with the newly validated programme. The University exceptionally agreed five awards to students who had completed the PCAI course through its Advanced Professional Studies Examination Board. These students will graduate in November 1996.

22 The University's validation process for the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling course raised a number of questions for the audit team about how the two sets of University Guidelines applied to the establishment of collaborative arrangements. For example, the University's Course Approval Guidelines authorise staff undertaking validations to 'make appropriate arrangements to suit the prevailing circumstances'. In this particular instance the validation panel had taken the view that, since the University considered there to be limited resource requirements and minimal financial risk associated with the course, it should be concerned principally with the academic viability of the proposal. Using its discretion, it therefore chose not explore at first hand the physical resources available to support the course or the financial viability of PCAI. It seemed to the team that the appropriately cautious approach recommended by the Overseas Guidelines to the resource and environmental aspects of the validation and approval of overseas collaborative provision, was undermined by the extensive discretion implicit in the University's Course Approval Guidelines. The importance of such matters is acknowledged by the University's recognition that, in the event of its partner's financial failure, the costs of safeguarding the students' interests might have to be borne by the Faculty of Education, and ultimately the University. The University may wish to review the degree of latitude it accords to faculties in the procedures to be followed in validating and approving collaborative provision, especially outside the UK.

23 The validation panel attached no conditions to the recommendation for approval it sent forward, although it had identified a number of important matters that remained to be addressed by PCAI. Consistent with the latitude extended by the Course Approval Guidelines, the University informed the audit team that it was a matter for the judgement of the validation panel what recommendations it should make and that comments made at validation were 'essentially suggestions rather than instructions'. The University's view is that it serves little useful purpose to report such comments (which it considers part of a 'continuing quality assurance dialogue') much beyond a first level monitoring process. As its AQAG considers the case for developing some University-level monitoring of course review activities (see above, paragraph 10), the University may also wish to consider whether its approval procedures for new courses and classes provide sufficient means of safeguarding its interests, and those of its partners and their students, in respect of overseas provision, and whether some form of University-level monitoring of new course approvals for delivery off campus might be advisable.

MONITORING AND REVIEW ARRANGEMENTS

24 The Course Approval Guidelines for validation of external courses state that the appropriate faculty will be responsible for seeing that arrangements are made for considering academic appeals, making progress decisions, academic regulations and revalidation activities in accord with normal University practice. In the case of the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling, the relevant bodies are the Academic Affairs Committee, the Professional Development Unit and the Faculty Office. A joint course board is normally established with responsibility for the administration and day-to-day management of the course. In this case, however, these responsibilities are primarily carried out by PCAI with the Faculty of Education's Professional Development Unit (PDU) providing the link with University systems (including, for example, course regulations, student registrations, examination boards, appeals and revalidation).

25 The University's Faculty of Education uses a process of 'verification' to monitor the delivery of the course for which it has responsibility and carries out such verification by receiving reports from a designated 'verifier'. In the Faculty of Education the final report of the validation panel serves as the agreement between the University and PCAI; the report does not, however, specify a regular process of verification and monitoring during the lifetime of the agreement.

26 At the time the audit team visited PCAI, the course had been running for less than a year. The verifier designated for the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling by the Faculty of Education had, however, been appointed and, from the following session, would carry out the required annual reviews on behalf of the Faculty and the PDU. The verifier had already visited PCAI and produced a report, dated January 1996, which was seen by the team. This combined her findings from her recent visit with information gathered through regular correspondence between PCAI and the Faculty of Education. The team noted that monitoring arrangements would continue in the 1996-97 session, when a report on the 1995-96 session would be submitted. The University suggested to the team that any significant modifications to the course would need to be approved by the Faculty Board and Senate although the report of the original validation panel did not specify arrangements to monitor any modifications to the course deemed necessary by either partner.

27 The University's validation agreement with PCAI identifies primary responsibility for the students who have registered for the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling, their progress and welfare as residing with PCAI, and the University does not regard these students as its own (see paragraph 16). Students at PCAI are nonetheless required to register with the University annually and the process of initial registration of the students by the University following receipt of details from PCAI in 1995 had taken some considerable time. The University informed the audit team that improvements to its arrangements for registering students on this course were in hand. Responsibility for assessing the competencies of applicants for the Postgraduate Diploma in Counselling rests with PCAI in line with the criteria agreed by the University at validation.

28 The audit team noted that course committees, sometimes referred to as 'Educational Committees', were regularly held at PCAI and their minutes sent to the University. PCAI staff were unaware of any reactions or comments made by the University in response to such material, nor had they seen any reports produced by the University in response to comments and reports from the external examiner and verifier. The University indicated to the team that, as the course developed, it would progressively be subjected to the departmental and faculty-based quality assurance processes described in paragraph 7, above. The University also told the team that while it did not expect its partners in PCAI to be aware, as yet, of its faculty-level and University-level quality assurance processes, it would be more than happy to explain these processes to them.

Role of the University verifier

29 Whereas the Overseas Guidelines refers to an 'external verifier', the verifier designated by the Faculty of Education for the University's course at PCAI was a contributor to the University's Counselling Unit courses. The University told the audit team that it did not regard the arrangement adopted by the Faculty of Education as being inappropriate in this case, but recognised that its guidelines required further clarification. The verifier's role is to 'consider the on-going operation of the course'. In this instance, this had been done through discussions with students and tutors at PCAI, by observation of training events, and by sampling students' work. Staff and students of PCAI who discussed the verifier's visit with the audit team were not clear that this visit had been linked to the quality assurance of the course.

30 Informal communications between PCAI and the University's Faculty of Education are excellent and contact between individual members of staff at PCAI and the University takes place on a regular basis. In addition, its membership of a well-established informal network of person-centred approach institutes throughout Europe offers PCAI valuable opportunities for comparison and development, over and above those provided by the University.

31 The audit team formed the view that the University might wish to consider incorporating into the formal agreements governing partnerships of this kind, systematic arrangements to provide faculties with the information needed to monitor the well being of newly-established courses in the early stages of their operation, and to provide further information on the formal monitoring arrangements to be applied thereafter. The University might wish to convey to its faculties its expectation that annual monitoring reports should provide them, and through them, the University, with the statistical and descriptive updates that would enable firm judgements to be reached regarding the general health of such a course.

THE ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS

Assessment regime within the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling

32 The Course Approval Guidelines state that the University will appoint external examiners for each course. From August 1996, this responsibility has been taken over by the Faculty's Professional Development Unit. In the case of PCAI, the University's Postgraduate Awards Scheme is responsible for the programme of study and its assessment. The external examiner for the University's Counselling programme is also responsible for the parallel course at PCAI.

33 The assessment of PCAI's trainees is based on three elements: a final self-appraisal statement; confirmation by staff of evolution of the trainee in relation to their goals, attendance, and presentation of assignments; and acceptance and recognition of the trainee by their peers. These elements are similar to those associated with the University's parallel UK-based course.

External examiner's reports

34 Reports by the external examiner are sent to the University's Principal and Vice Chancellor and subsequently copied to the vice dean (academic) of the relevant faculty and the academic manager of the individual course. In the case of the Faculty of Education, the University informed the audit team that copies of the reports of the external examiner for the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling at PCAI were sent to the Head of the PDU and the Director of PCAI, who with the Vice Dean, together or individually, will take any necessary action to follow up matters raised in the report. Vice deans have recently begun to submit an annual synoptic review to the Advisory Group on Student Progress and Monitoring of the comments made by external examiners on courses in their faculties.

35 The University's external examiner attended PCAI in July 1995, although her appointment was not formally confirmed until February 1996. Her report was extensive and supportive, concluding that she judged the standard of the course to be comparable to those offered in the UK. At a subsequent meeting of the relevant Board of Examiners held in March 1996 she expressed some concern that since most of the assignments she had seen at that point were submitted in Greek, they had had to be translated for her scrutiny. Although the external examiner had written an extensive report after her visit to PCAI, and staff of PCAI had seen her report, the Director of PCAI told the audit team that she was not aware what had happened to the report subsequently. The Director of PCAI had received no feedback from any Strathclyde-based staff regarding the outcomes of discussions at the University relating to such reports.

Translation of students' assessments from Greek

36 Noting that at the time of the audit interpretation and translation services were being provided by a trained counsellor working for PCAI, the audit team was surprised to learn that for part of the time during which such translation services had been provided, the counsellor had in fact been a student on the course. Although the student concerned had subsequently graduated, and the most obvious conflict of interest brought about by this arrangement had ceased, this arrangement highlighted for the team the difficulties associated with using a non-Greek speaking external examiner to assess a course taught and assessed in Greek. The University informed the team that it had confidence in the integrity of PCAI and its staff, and could see little danger in using one student on the course to translate the work of others for assessment purposes. The team does not share this view and hopes that the University will wish to reflect on the need to be able to assure itself that where it is necessary to make arrangements to provide translations of the work of students on its overseas courses for its external examiners, such arrangements are demonstrably secure.

STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

37 At the time of the validation, information on the existing staff complement had been made available by PCAI, and at the formal validation event the University's validation panel had met all three of the teaching staff delivering the course. In approving the programme, the validation panel did not require any means which would enable the University to play a part in the selection and appointment of any teaching staff who might subsequently be engaged to teach the course during its five year-validation period.

38 The audit team was told that although no staff had left PCAI since the validation event, several additional staff had become involved, both to provide core teaching and on a p art-time basis. The University is satisfied that it is not necessary to be involved in staff appointments at PCAI and the team learnt that decisions about appointments had been made directly by PCAI, which had relied upon an extensive knowledge of the individuals working in the subject area, and had not drawn upon the personnel or academic policies of the University. The major formal opportunity that appeared to have been used by the University to satisfy itself of the quality of PCAI staff had been the visit in July 1995 of the external examiner. The team did note, however, that, in addition, there had been a series of informal contacts between PCAI and the University.

Staff development

39 Under the terms of the validation agreement between the University and PCAI, the latter is solely responsible for the development of its staff. As previously noted, PCAI staff are part of an extensive network of person centred approach practitioners across Europe, and have taken advantage of development opportunities through that network. Although several of the staff of PCAI are former students of the University, they appeared to the audit team to have had relatively little contact with the parallel counselling course running within the University. In the circumstances, it was understandable that no University staff development information had been sent to staff at PCAI although the team noted the staff development work undertaken in Athens by the University's verifier (under contract to PCAI) in the course of her most recent visit. The team also noted, however, that no information on the progress or development of the equivalent University course had been provided for PCAI. In the team's view this was a surprising omission since the distinctive features of the two courses might be held to create an opportunity for each group of staff to learn from the work of the other.

40 The audit team noted several staff development activities supported by PCAI staff. All are involved in the management and development of the course and with the selection of trainees. 'Community meetings' are frequently held, sometimes on a daily basis, to discuss progress and share experiences. One-day retreats are held approximately every three months to develop staff relationships and also to bring staff into contact with 'facilitators' from other European and North American centres working within the same counselling approach. These locally determined arrangements appeared to work well.

PUBLICITY AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS

41 The University considers that the most effective control it has over what is issued in Greece by PCAI in its name is the good and trusting relationship that exists between the partners. Consequently, the University does not consider it necessary to scrutinise the promotional materials for the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling produced by PCA1 for use in Greece. The University may nevertheless find it helpful to consider the guidance on this matter contained in HEQC's Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

42 PCAI Athens is a non profit making organisation, the primary aim of which is to train individuals in a person centred approach to counselling. The organisation is small with under 50 students and three core teaching staff. The audit team noted the strong personal commitment of the current Director and the other members of staff it met. The students who met the team spoke positively about their experience of PCAI. Under the Director's leadership it seemed to the team that PCAI was working steadily towards its aim of establishing the profession and practice of counselling in Greece. The University and its partner consider that the University's validation of the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling is making a contribution to the realisation of PCAI's aim.

43 The University's initial activity to assure the quality of the Postgraduate Diploma in Person Centred Counselling involved a two stage validation process and informal contacts between its Faculty of Education and PCAI. It relied upon the integrity and professionalism of the Director of PCAI, her team, the external examiner and the verifier. In exercising its responsibility for the standard of the award made in its name, it seemed to the audit team that the University was placing considerable emphasis upon procedures operating at the faculty level. The University indicated that in its second year of operation, the course would be subject to the scrutiny of the Academic Affairs Committee of its Faculty of Education, through the external examiner's report and the review that would be carried out by the verifier. The responses of PCAI to the recommendations of the validation panel would be considered at that point. Additionally, pass rates on the Diploma course would be reviewed annually by the University's Academic Practice Committee alongside pass rates for all other postgraduate courses in the University.

44 At the time of the audit, the verifier's second report and the response to it of the Faculty of Education lay in the future. The audit team concluded that continuing quality assurance of the programme and of the standard of the University's award will depend in large measure on the application of monitoring and review arrangements within the Faculty of Education, and on how the University satisfies itself as to their effectiveness. In the light of the team's scrutiny, the University may wish to review how well its present University-level procedures enable it to gather evidence and reach appropriately informed judgements about the continuing quality of this programme and the standard of its award.

Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the University, is attached.

UNIVERSITY RESPONSE TO HEQC AUDIT REPORT ON THE UNIVERSITY'S PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PERSON CENTRED APPROACH INSTITUTE

The University of Strathclyde welcomes this opportunity to respond briefly to the HEQC report. It does not consider it appropriate to comment in detail. Many detailed points were raised in discussion with HEQC and the University would like to thank them for courteously listening to these, even if they did not accept them.

However, the University would like to reiterate the context in terms of the timescale and the size of this operation in relation to the HEQC report in order to assist any interested reader.

The PCAI is a small, non-profit operation with 3 core teaching staff and 50 students. It is accountable to the Greek Department of Justice. Eighteen of these students are currently registered on the course which is validated by the University of Strathclyde.
The University's agreement with the Person Centred Approach Institute is to validate the Institute's Postgraduate Diploma Course in Person Centred Counselling. Having approved the course at an initial validation event, the University sees its continuing role as ensuring that appropriate arrangements are operating in PCAI to deliver the course to the standards agreed at initial validation. The standard of the final awards is comparable with awards made on the equivalent Diploma course in Counselling delivered within the University of Strathclyde.
The initial two stage validation process took place in September and November 1994.
Senate approved arrangements in February 1995 with validation to take effect from September 1995.
The External Examiner for the equivalent course in the University of Strathclyde agreed to be the External Examiner for the Greek course. She made an exploratory visit in June 1995, reporting back to the Faculty in July 1995 and took up the formal appointment in September 1995.
The faculty appointed a verifier to monitor course delivery and pass feedback to the Faculty. The verifier visited PCAI in September 1995 and reported back to the Faculty in January 1996.
The HEQC Audit visit took place in May 1996.
The first three Diplomates from the University validated course graduated in November 1996. Exceptionally the University made five awards in July 1996 to students who had completed their studies at PCAI in June 1995 and who were deemed by the appropriate Examination Board to have reached the required standard.
Course monitoring by the Education Faculty's Professional Development Unit is a continuous process and the first regular annual reporting to the Faculty and University will take place in 1997.

The University will look carefully at the points raised in the HEQC report and decide if any action beyond the ongoing developments is necessary.