€¦ · Web viewExecutive summary. The Annual Assurance Statement provides oversight of the key City academic quality and standards developments for Senate and Council. Student

For Educational Quality Committee Item 15

31.10.19

Access restrictions: n/a

From: Georgia Moustaka (Student & Academic Services)

Subject: Assurance Report to Council on Academic Quality and Standards (covering the 2018/19 academic year)

Status: For noting

Author(s): Georgia Moustaka (Quality & Academic Development)

Helen Fitch (Assistant Registrar (Quality)

Sponsor: Professor David Bolton

Susannah Marsden (Director, Student & Academic Services)

Executive summary

The Annual Assurance Statement provides oversight of the key City academic quality and standards developments for Senate and Council.

Student & Academic Services has led the development and drafting of the report in liaison with the Governance Team. The joint statement on student representation in quality and academic standards was updated in consultation with the Students’ Union.

The Action Plan in Appendix 1 within this report provides updates to the completed 2018/19 actions and the Action Plan for 2019/20 which captures the ongoing and new actions.

Appendices: Appendix 1: Action Plans Appendix 2: Quality and Standards Short Guide Appendix 3: Strategic Information based on HESA submission Appendix 4: Senate Composition - Ordinance C1.3-

Action(s) required from the Committee:

A. To note the Assurance Report on Academic Quality and Standards.

The table below outlines the consultations which took place as part of the review process: Committee date Committee title Outcome/actionOctober 2019 AGC For noteOctober 2019 CGNC For noteOctober 2019 EQC For noteOctober 2019 Senate For recommendation to Council

1

Assurance Report to Council on Academic Quality and Standards (covering the 2018/19 academic year) – Progress Update September 2019

Part 1: Overview and Contextual Update:

The Annual Assurance Statement provides oversight of the key City academic quality and standards developments for Senate and Council.

Student & Academic Services led the drafting of this report which focuses on City’s quality assurance processes and how they operated during the 2018/19 academic year. This work has been undertaken in liaison with Learning Enhancement and Development (LEaD) and the College Secretary within a framework based on guidance published by the Council of University Chairs. The joint statement on student representation in quality and academic standards was developed in consultation with the Students’ Union.

The Annual Assurance Statement was provided historically to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and is no longer formally required by the Office for Students (OfS). However, the OfS does have a continued expectation that institutions are able to demonstrate effective oversight of academic quality and standards. The annual assurance report will therefore continue to be produced to provide Senate and Council with the required oversight.

a) Sector developments and compliance: City continues to hold its registration with the Office for Students and its Silver Teaching Excellence Framework award. During 2018/19, preparations for TEF5 (2020/21) developed including our anticipated new engagement at subject level as well as the on-going institutional level review. During 2018/19, the OfS carried out two subject-level pilots across parts of the sector to identify the most effective approach for TEF ratings at both subject and institutional level.

Alongside the second year of the Subject-level pilot, during 2018/19 an Independent Review of the TEF also took place led by Dame Shirley Pearce. The outcomes of the review are expected to be presented to the Secretary of State in summer 2019 and the recommendations made within Dame Shirley Pearce's report will be considered before the implementation of subject-level TEF.

Although it is anticipated that TEF 5 will run at both Institution and Subject-Level modelled from the 2018/19 pilot, the recommendations and outcomes from the final year of the subject-level pilot and the Independent Review will inform the future design of subject-level TEF. Therefore it is also anticipated that further changes in requirements for submissions and the data will take place between now and TEF 5. However we can expect a continued focus on Teaching Quality, Learning Engagement and Student Outcomes which align with City’s KPIs for education.

During 2018/19, City engaged in the new OfS requirements for Access and Participation Plans (APPs). Requirements for APP are a step-change from the previous Access Agreement required under HEFCE, and underpin the OfS strategic commitment to access and student success. These included plans covering a five year period, incorporating an assessment of performance against new data by the OfS in March 2019, to eliminate what they deemed to be ‘unexplained gaps’ within 20 years and the publishing of all elements of the plan. Council approved the APP and the first draft was submitted to the OfS in June. Following some ‘technical queries’ from the OfS a final draft was submitted in September, and approval is pending from Director of OfS, but expected by the beginning of October.

2

b) Strategic update:

The refreshed Education & Student (E&S) Strategy was approved during 2018/19. It is underpinned by a narrative co-designed with City students about what they want their experience to be and sets out five change areas covering: student journey, student opportunity, operational excellence and cultural change, curriculum development and learning and teaching. Six large-scale pieces of work progressed during the year as part of strategy implementation:

1. The Integrated Student Support Review was commissioned by ExCo in December 2018 and the report arising presented to ET/Deans in May 2019. The review was completed by Dr Andrew West, an experienced leader in the sector on student support matters, and involved discussions with a wide range of staff as well as students as well as consideration of sector practice. Recommendations from the review were wide-ranging. ET/Deans prioritised initial actions on professional services support. Student & Academic Services and Learning Enhancement & Development subsequently developed proposals for change within their Services and following staff consultation, revised arrangements will start to be established from September 2019, with phased implementation continuing over the next 12 months. The ISS Review identified broader actions, including in relation to matters relating to Personal Tutoring as well as IT-enabled developments, and actions will be built into the Education & Student Strategy Operational Plan 2019-20.

2. The Employability Development Plan was created with two visionary commitments that (i) all of our UG students will have support to develop Career Focus and (ii) professional experience as part of their curriculum. The plan was endorsed by Education and Student Committee (February 2019), ExCo (April 2019) and Council (May 2019). Work has progressed with Schools to discuss the detail of how the strategy can best be implemented within programmes. These details will be captured in the implementation plan due to go for ExCo approval in Autumn 2019.

3. The Student Attainment Project which was signed-off by the City Learning & Teaching Committee on 9th July, the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) Committee on 10th July, and the Education and Student Committee on 11th July. To develop the project and our separate School & Programme Engagement Plan and Action Plan (Learning & Teaching), we undertook substantial consultation across City to ensure that the work we are committing to takes us in the direction our students and staff would like to see. The delivery of the project will be coordinated by the Student Attainment Project Management Group (SAPMG). The project delivery will be overseen by both the CLTC and the Race Equality Charter Self-Assessment Team (RECSAT) in order to ensure that our action plan remains fit-for-purpose and evidence-led.

4. Phase 2 of the undergraduate programme assessment strategies also ran this year. The assessment toolkit has been launched and can be added to as time progresses. This can be found here. Schools have identified programmes based on School need. The School of Health Sciences had much activity taking place in relation to the new pre-registration Nursing programme and Nursing Associate and so the focus was on the new assessment strategies for these. The School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering had the new engineering undergraduate programmes running and there had been some changes to the undergraduate computing programmes which were now taking effect and so no further programmes were reviewed. The Cass Business School reviewed aspects of specific undergraduate programmes and changes to assessments have been made. In the School of Arts and Social Sciences, further work has taken place in the Journalism and Economics undergraduate programme.

3

https://www.city.ac.uk/lead/assessment-toolkit?_ga=2.100507095.819401636.1566888612-329011335.1543322341

Lastly, City Law School reviewed assessment criteria and guidance for the undergraduate programmes.

5. LEaD worked with Schools and Departments to develop workshops to support the implementation of the personal tutor policy and mental health awareness. Additionally, LEaD changed aspects of the Student Support and Personal Tutoring module as part of the MA Academic Practice to include more support for vulnerable students and in January 2019 – February 2019 35 staff/ GTA’s and external students took this module.

6. Year 3 of the Modernising Administration for Students programme progressed focusing primarily on the delivery of pilots for personalised timetables and the student engagement and attendance monitoring projects in specific year 1 undergraduate programmes. Pilot 2 will be delivered in September 2019 with full-roll out in September 2020. The Student Communications Project also continued its work delivering a new student hub to replace the previous website and broader work continues.

c) Senate Academic Regulation and Policy changes:

During 2018/19 the following Regulations were updated and approved by Senate:

Regulation 4 (Senate’s Committees) Regulation 5B (Standing Orders for Boards of Studies and their Sub-Committees) Regulation 7 (Emeritus Titles) Regulation 19 (Assessment Regulations) Regulation 20 (Appeal Procedures - Taught Programmes) Regulation 20b (Appeal Procedures - Taught Programmes in Validated Institutions) Regulation 21 (Appeals - Research Programmes) Regulation 21b (Student Appeals - Research Programmes at Validated Institutions) Regulation 25 (Physical Format, Binding and Retention of Theses) Regulation 28 (Appealing a decision made by a Research Ethics Committee)

During 2018/19 the following policies were updated and approved by Senate:

University Admissions Admission for a Research Degree Graduate Teaching Assistants Viva Voce or Oral Examination Taught Student Attendance & Engagement

d) Compliance with external Frameworks:

City’s quality assurance processes which are documented in the Quality Manual, are designed to be compliant with the revised UK Quality Code for Higher Education. City’s Short Guide to Quality and Standards is included at Appendix 2 for information. Information on City’s award-bearing programmes are available on our website and published prospectuses.

e) Strategic Information:

Summary details of City’s student and programme numbers, together with outcomes for the last 3 years, are included at Appendix 3.

4

f) Student Representation and Feedback/Student Voice: ( Collaborative Statement from City and the Students’ Union)

Central to managing the quality of our educational provision and identifying the need for change is considering, and acting upon, feedback from our students. Feedback is gathered through City working closely in partnership with the Students’ Union (SU).

During 2018-19, student representatives continued to play a key role in informing change, including via Annual Programme Evaluations (APEs) and Periodic Review (see Part 2). Student representatives participated in a range of committees from Student-Staff Liaison Committees (SSLCs) through to Council. The Students’ Union also submitted standing reports to the Education and Student Committee, Senate and Council, providing a further dedicated opportunity for students’ views to be heard.

The University and SU are jointly committed to operating an effective system of student representation throughout all levels of University governance via the Code of Practice for Student Representation. This ensures that students have input on quality and enhancement at City.

The University and SU carried out a Student Representation Review in 2018/19. The recommendations from the review fall into two strands of activity. First, those that will support the on-going development of a high-quality Student Representative System at City, that supports City’s student satisfaction KPI and the SU strategy. Second, to further review the wider democratic and representative structures within the Students’ Union and university to ensure that our diverse Student Voice is truly represented and heard. This strand of work will support the Access and Participation Plan and EDI Strategy.

Over this academic year, City, University of London Students’ Union has continued to work in collaboration with the University to strengthen student representation. A total of 759 Programme Reps were elected this year, a further increase on the 727 of last year. Further to this, 47% of Reps received formal induction training either in person, a 17% increase on the 2017/18 academic year.

The Union continued the high of the rebranded system to work within Schools, advising on elections and partnership work with the students. This was underpinned by continuing use of the code of conduct with reps which sets out a minimum meeting attendance requirement.

The Union did not conduct a specific Programme Representative satisfaction survey, however as part of the Student Representation Review currently being undertaken by the Union and the University’s Student Voice team within Student and Academic Services we obtained an insight into the thoughts of Programme Reps and non-Programme Reps on the Programme Rep system. Programme Reps whom completed the survey described they have had a positive experience during the 2018/19 academic year and most felt they were able to create real change in their schools while developing skills for the future. Non-Programme Reps who completed the survey, particularly in the School of Arts and Social Sciences and the School of Health Sciences, have had a positive experience of the Programme Representative system.

However there is still work to be done, particularly amongst students from Cass Business School and the City Law School and a number qualitative comments expressed dissatisfaction with the current system, voicing a lack of trust in the skills or desire of Programme Reps to deliver change for students.

As mentioned above, there is a Student Representation Review being undertaken by the Union and Student & Academic Services. Recommendations from the review will contribute to improving the satisfaction of all City students with the Programme Representative system.

5

In the National Student Survey (NSS) this year the Union has seen a 1% decrease for Question 26 – ‘The students’ union effectively represents students’ academic interests’, despite the decrease, the Union rose from third place to second out of 23 London institutions and remains in the top quartile of Students’ Unions in London for second year in a row.

In recognition of the close partnership between the Union and University, the Union were pleased and welcomed the opportunity to be consulted on the University’s access and participation work through its invitation for a sabbatical officer and professional staff member to join University’s Access and Participation Plan Working Group. The Union were sufficiently consulted and informed of the plan’s timeline, assessment of performance and targets and asked if support is needed to assist our contribution. The Union are looking forward to playing a more central role in the development, monitoring and evaluation of the Access and Participation Plan than previous years.

6

Part 2: Academic Quality and Standards (the Quality Framework)

An overview of completed actions for 2018/19 and actions for 2019/20 can be found in Appendix 1.

a) Admissions

Overview:

City welcomes applications from all candidates with the potential and motivation to succeed in Higher Education. We seek to advise, guide and select applicants with due care and attention to each individual.

Principles:

Admissions decisions are made in accordance with Senate Regulation 14 and as outlined in the University’s Admissions Policy. Admissions for research degrees are covered by a separate policy.

Oversight and Operation:

The Deputy President and Provost chairs the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Recruitment Working Groups, which revised their terms of reference in 2018. The Working Groups monitor the admissions policy and criteria for all taught award-bearing courses.

Scope of Activity:

Undergraduate

The undergraduate cycle (for 2018/9 academic year entry) has received 24,447 applications to date. This is a 1.4% increase on 2018 (24,100) and 2.2% increase on 2017 (23,908). The main areas of growth can be found in Business Management, Nursing, Optometry and Psychology.

The Unconditional Offer Scheme continued to be in operation for the 2019 entry year. There were 820 offers made through this scheme and 217 students have been placed via this route. Use of the UO Scheme will be reviewed by ExCo in early Autumn.

The Clearing exposure for 2019 looks to be in the region of 22%-25%. In 2018 there were 951 students who were accepted via this route, with the University having made just over1,500 offers in Clearing.

The reliance on Clearing in 2018 increased to just under 25% and 951 represents the highest number ever recruited through Clearing. This is a 4% increase on 2017 and an increase on the three year average of 22.6%.

Postgraduate

The 2018/19 cycle for postgraduate taught students (PGT) has received 18,629 applications to date – this is an 8% reduction in 2018 numbers at this point. Offer numbers are also 4% down.

The current forecasts suggest that the University will be slightly below PGT targets in Cass Business School and the School of Arts and Social Sciences. The 2019 cycle for research students (PGR) has seen a 26% increase in applications and

7

https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/439941/University-Admissions-Policy-2019-2020.pdf

a 59% increase on acceptances against the same point in the previous cycle.

Future Enhancements:

The Undergraduate and Postgraduate Admissions and Recruitment Working Groups will continue their strategic focus looking at 2020/21 and beyond.

Work to improve the quality, and standardisation, of admissions management information in conjunction with the Management Information project within MAfS.

Information Technology and Admissions will develop a 3-5 year roadmap on the technological development required within admissions.

The Admissions Policy will be reviewed and revised for the 2020/21 entry year.

b) Periodic Review

Overview:

Periodic Review is a process whereby every taught and research degree programme is internally reviewed on a 5-yearly cycle.

Principles:

Periodic Review is a peer review (involving a panel independent of the programme team) and evidence-based process drawing on a wide range of available management information and through formal meetings with the subject providers, students and alumni, and external subject experts. Programme teams provide a written reflection on the previous 5 years, as well as planning ahead, ensuring that the programmes continue to be relevant, meet the University’s Vision & Strategy, are adequately resourced and enhance the student experience.


Periodic Review reflects on the past 5 years to ensure the strength and relevance of the programme for the next 5 years. Any extension to the 5 year timeline (e.g. updates to PSRB requirements etc) requires approval by the Deputy President.

The Educational Quality Committee oversees Periodic Review and receives regular reports on activity and an annual overview report, subsequently received by Senate. School Programme Approval and Review Committees (PARC) have responsibility for overseeing actions including receipt of initial response to conditions and recommendations.

Scope of Periodic Review Activity:

13 reviews were undertaken:

School Programme(s) covered

Cass MSc Charity Programmes

SASS PhD/DMA Music

SASS UG/PG Economics

SASS MPhil/PhD Department of Sociology

SASS MPhil/PhD Journalism

SHS Postgraduate Certificate / Diploma / MSc in:

8

Computed Tomography Medical Magnetic Resonance

SHS Masters in Public Health (MPH)

SHS MSc Clinical Optometry

SHS MSc Advanced Practice Programmes (All Programmes)

SHS MSc Health Services Research

SMCSE MSc Advanced Mechanical Engineering

SMCSE MPhil/PhD Research Degrees Computer Science

SMCSE MPhil/PhD Research Degrees Engineering

SMCSE MSc Information Science & MA Library Science There are 4 Reviews in progress due to be completed by the end of December 2019:

School Programme(s) to be covered Law Research ProgrammesCass PhD ProgrammesCass MSc Global Supply Chain ManagementCass MSc Marketing Strategy and Innovation

Outcomes from the reviews:All reviews demonstrated ongoing commitment to educational development and the student learning experience, in line with the Education and Student Strategy.

Taught programmes The outcomes from Periodic Reviews confirmed that confidence could be placed in the academic standards of the reviewed taught provision. Confidence could also be placed in the quality of the learning opportunities available to students.

Research degree programmesA number of research degree programmes undertook periodic review for the first time. Confidence could be placed in the quality of research opportunities available to research students.

Process following Periodic Review:

For each Review, a report outlining conditions and recommendations is presented to the Programme Team and School Programme Approval & Review Committees (PARCs) at School level. Programme Teams then build upon their Action Plans.

The outcomes and any risk management recommendations from all Periodic Reviews are reported to Educational Quality Committee. An annual overview report reflecting on key themes is presented annually to Educational Quality Committee and Senate.

Particular strengths in programmes reviewed during 2018/19 were identified as follows: the commitment and dedication of the students and staff to create a supportive

learning environment at City; the quality of supervision and responsiveness of staff to research students; academic expertise and research reputation, combined with quality of facilities, as

a motivation for students to apply to City.Future Enhancements: The Periodic Review panels included the following enhancements to be addressed (refer

9

to Action Plan for this report)

Student Voice: City Students’ Union and City, University of London have reviewed the student representation system in 2018/19, the review and subsequent recommendations are due to be presented to Senate in October 2019;

Learning & Teaching: Academic staff to continue to review the international aspects of programmes and modules. This is an area identified for development where work has started on collecting case studies, and developing an international toolkit.

Academic staff to continue to nurture best pedagogical practices on marking and assessment with support from Associate Deans Education and LEaD. This will ensure learners are supported to evaluate and reflect on their progress with an understanding of how and what they will learn. Staff can be signposted to existing LEaD guidance (e.g. Assessment Toolkit) and University policies and processes around assessment and feedback.

Planning: Schools to continue to reflect on their portfolios via the School planning rounds with (business as usual with oversight from Strategy, Implementation and Performance Committee);

Alumni Relations: School staff to continue to strengthen alumni relations with support from the Development and Alumni Relations Team;

Consistent information provided to students: School staff to signpost opportunities for students to make the most out of their time at City (e.g. access to funding, career opportunities, access to student support etc.)

School staff to ensure that programmes follow the required City handbook template (to include personal tutor arrangements, assessment and marking information, student support and resources, and consistent module teaching hours) available via the Quality Manual with oversight by Quality and Academic Development (QUAD).

c) Programme Development and Approval

Overview:

City operates a robust process of programme approval which is designed to ensure that new programmes fit with the strategic direction of the institution, are financially viable with evidenced demand, meet robust academic standards and provide high quality learning opportunities.

Principles:

The principles of Programme Approval at City are to: Support the development of high quality, relevant and complementary provision. Provide a common framework that is robust, but flexible and responsive to new

market opportunities and the development of new/innovative provision. Be a peer review process; drawing on the expertise of internal colleagues and

external experts. Promote constructive and challenging discussion of matters related to academic

provision and the quality of the student learning experience. Allow for the enhancement of proposals drawing on internal and external

innovation and good practice.

Proposals should have significant staff and, where appropriate, employer and student input from the earliest stages of development. These must articulate, as far as possible, with PSRB (Professional and Statutory Regulatory Bodies) accreditations and Research Council requirements.

10

Significant amendments to existing programmes are also considered through the programme approval process.


The Deputy President and Provost has delegated authority from Senate. Programme Approval operates as a two-stage process. Stage 1 considers the market and strategic fit of the provision alongside the resource implications. Programme Approval and Review Committees (PARC) within Schools may consider proposals prior to Stage 1 but must consider proposals prior to Stage 2 before referral to the University Programme Approval Committee (UPAC). At Stage 2, the proposed programme content is examined in more detail with input from an external expert.

Scope of Activity:

Stage 1: 17 proposals (including three articulation agreements into existing programmes

and one resubmission) were considered. Two proposals were not approved but one was subsequently resubmitted and

approved at Stage 1. Two articulation agreements into existing programmes were approved by the

Deputy President and Provost by Chair’s action*. (*Articulation agreements with existing partners can be agreed by Chair’s action as they are often more akin to Recognition of Prior Learning than a new programme)

Two significant amendments (change of award title and the introduction of PG Cert/PG Dip entry points) were approved by the Deputy President and Provost by Chair’s action.

Stage 2: 11 proposals were considered, and all were approved. Articulation agreements and significant amendments approved by Chair’s action at

Stage 1 did not require a Stage 2 review.

Particular strengths of new programme proposals were identified as:

The breadth and currency of the provision under development. The quality and clarity of the documentation in a substantial number of proposals. The innovation and response to market demands demonstrated in the proposals. The commitment and dedication of the programme teams. The introduction of apprenticeship routes to widen participation. Since 2017, large

employers must pay a compulsory 2% apprenticeship levy. This levy can then be used to pay for the tuition fees of an apprenticeship programme. Apprentices do not pay any fees.

Future Enhancements to Process:

To ensure that proper consideration of marketing and recruitment cycles is observed, and sufficient time to approve and implement new programmes is allowed.

The introduction of a stream lined Stage 1 and Stage 2 forms in consultation with internal stakeholders in the approval process.

The introduction of a ‘major amendment’ form with updated guidance on the

11

associated approval process and to investigate the benefits of an articulation agreement approval form (both of these currently use the Stage 1 form as a basis but many sections are not applicable).

To investigate use of technologies to streamline the approval process. Schools to work more closely with Learning Enhancement and Development

(LEaD) prior to Stage 2 submissions to ensure that programme and module specifications are in line with University and external regulatory frameworks

New Programmes and Significant Amendments to Existing Programmes Approved in 2018/19

School TitleSHS Foundation Degree in Healthcare: Nursing Associate

(apprenticeship route) SHS BSc Nursing (RN/Pre-Reg) (Adult) (Child) (Mental Health) / MSc

Nursing (RN/Pre-Reg) (Adult and Mental Health) / MSc Nursing (RN/Pre-Reg) (Adult) (Child) (Mental Health)

SHS Introduction to Health SciencesSHS MSc Advanced Clinical Practice (apprenticeship and non-

apprenticeship routes)SMCSE PhD Library and Information ScienceCass BSc Finance with Actuarial ScienceCass Global MBACass Executive Masters in Medical Leadership (apprenticeship route)Cass Executive Masters in Leadership (apprenticeship route)Cass BSc Accounting and Finance (articulation agreement with the

University of Nicosia, Cyprus) Cass BSc Actuarial Science suite (articulation agreements with Zhongnan

University of Economics and Law and University of International Business and Economics, China)

Cass MSc Global Supply Chain Management (articulation agreement with Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea) (significant amendment)

Cass Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Diploma in Global Finance (significant amendment)

SASS MA Sound Practice and Composition (significant amendment)SASS BA History and PoliticsSASS MA and MFA Creative WritingCLS Bar Vocational Studies (BVS)

d) Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Accreditations and Reviews

Overview:

Professional and Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) is a general term used to describe those organisations that work with the University in the approval, monitoring and review of programmes that lead to a professional or vocational qualification and which exist to ensure that national standards within the professions are met. PSRB accreditation may include recognition of membership or exemption from professional exams. Oversight and Operation:

Due to their diverse nature, and close relationship with individual programmes, PSRB relationships are managed at School level and overseen via Boards of Studies and

12

relevant sub-committees. School registers of PSRB accredited programmes is maintained at institutional level and reported to Educational Quality Committee twice a year.. A PSRB summary report is presented to Senate on an annual basis to enable Senate to take oversight of relationships with PSRBs involving City programmes.Scope of Activity:

City has links with 67 PSRBs which provide externality to 145 routes within City programmes.

20 of the accredited routes have recently been terminated by City following consideration by Schools PARCs. Therefore renewal of their accreditations will not be sought following the completion of the current cohorts.

Common themes:

Feedback given by PSRBs is discipline-specific, yet examination of the PSRB reports reveals some common themes which have a broader, cross-institutional significance. In accordance with City’s Policy on Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Accreditations, outcomes of PSRB arrangements, the content of the PSRB (re)accreditation reports and any recommendations and/or good practices arising are considered by Schools through the Board of Studies or appropriate sub-committee. Examples of these cross-institutional common themes include:

Insistence on standardised format, relevance, clarity and accuracy of written documentation, primarily programme and module specifications and information published on City website.

Provision of and promotion of awareness of the student support services. Acknowledgement of the merit of developing strong links between research and

teaching. Strong focus on the development of links with the industry through provision of

placements, active engagement of the industry in defining the module content, use of visiting lecturers and guest speakers.

Requirement for clarity and consistency in assessment and marking. Stress on the relevance of the module content and incorporation of contemporary

topics into the curriculum. Strong support for innovative approaches to assessment design and wide use of

technology in learning and teaching. Recognition of the value of a well-defined target marketing strategy.

Summary of PSRB activity at Schools:

City Law School (CLS) - Significant effort and investment is being put into implementing major changes made recently by PSRBs for both UG and professional programmes.

Cass Business School (Cass) - The feedback received from PSRBs is at School rather than programme-level and notes as good practice areas such as quality of faculty, induction, research and engagement with the City. Recommendations for further action include developing the School’s approaches to assessment mapping, to entrepreneurship and to digital.

School of Arts and Social Sciences (SASS) - The School’s accreditation activity is fairly disparate, with some PSRBs monitoring standards or changes to programmes in a tick-box/ checklist style while others make site visits and require detailed submissions. The levels of risk differ based on the relative value the PSRB adds to a student’s degree programme, some making City programmes more attractive than a competitor institutions and some providing critical accreditation without which the degree would be of little worth professionally.

Learning Enhancement and Development (LEaD) - The Nursing and Midwifery 13

Council (NMC) approval for PG Cert programmes is to be discontinued over the next two years as part of a larger review and recognition that these programmes do already have excellent monitoring arrangements. Advance HE continue to accredit the PG Cert route.

School of Health Sciences (SHS) - The usual PSRB activity has continued for Radiography, Language and Communication Science and Optometry programmes. In Nursing there is currently a high level of activity due to new standards for pre-registration nursing programmes coming into force for the academic year 2019/20. The School has participated in the consultation on the development of the provision of apprenticeships for Optometry.

School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering (SMCSE) - The School has a number of upcoming re-accreditations. The main conditions/ recommendations arising from past PSRB visits pertained to the quality of programme and module specifications and transparency of marking and moderation of some Engineering degrees’ projects. These two issues have now been addressed and their completion will be reported during the upcoming accreditation events. The commendations centred on the quality of engineering labs, enthusiastic student body and the School’s engagement with employability.

e) Academic Standards and Outcomes: Assessment practice and outcomes (including assessment feedback turnaround).

Overview: Assessment of learning is integral to City’s commitment to provide high quality education and to underpin the academic standards of awards made to students.

Principles:

Assessment Standards and OutcomesThe assessment of students on taught programmes is underpinned by Senate Regulation 19 and the Assessment and Feedback Policy. The Policy also applies to partnership provision unless equivalent alternative arrangements have been agreed between City and the partner institution.

Assessment Feedback

Assessment and Feedback strategies are agreed and reviewed during programme approval and review. Feedback is provided on all assessed work, including examinations, and on other relevant aspects of a student’s performance and progress in a module. Turnaround times of three weeks for coursework and other in-term assessments, and four weeks for end of module examinations or equivalent are set out in Senate policy and adherence to this is overseen by Senate and ExCo on a regular basis.

Boards of Studies oversee the effective implementation of the timeliness of feedback and associated data on turnaround times.


Assessment Standards and Outcomes

Assessment Boards are sub-committees of Senate and under Senate Regulation are responsible for making formal recommendations on student progression and award based

14

on the marks achieved by students.

Year reflected on: Term One of the academic year 2018/19 up to and including the Examination Period of Autumn 2018/19

Scope of Activity:

7 Briefing Sessions were delivered to 40 staff including Assessment Board Chairs and other academic and professional staff involved with the 2018/19 Boards. 80 Progression and final Assessment Boards were held between January 2019 and 1 August 2019, of which 21 (26%) were observed by Student & Academic Services on behalf of Senate. Overall, the Boards operated according to City’s regulatory framework with robust discussion and External Examiner contribution.

Good practice was noted at many Boards and where risks or inconsistencies were noted, recommendations are being made to Senate on how practice can be improved. There is a desire to strengthen the statistical data available to Assessment Boards to enable greater oversight and analysis of student and programme outcomes and this will be taken forward.

In the autumn term of 2018/19, the average compliance across the School of Arts and Social Sciences, Cass Business School, the School of Health Sciences, the School of Mathematics, Computer Science and Engineering and Learning Enhancement and Development stood at 91%, an increase from 89% achieved for the same period during 2017/18. Data from the City Law School and Cass Executive Programme were not provided in time for inclusion in this report. Reasons for non-compliance were reported to Senate and ExCo.

f) Academic Standards and Outcomes: External Examining

Overview: External examining is the principal means of maintaining UK academic standards. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) appoint external examiners who are suitably qualified and experienced in their subject area. They offer advice on good practice and opportunities to enhance the quality of those programmes/modules and also offer a view of how standards compare with the same/similar awards in the sector. External examiners submit written reports providing independent feedback on academic content, assessment and the processes through which academic standards are achieved, maintained and enhanced, and programmes and modules then respond to any recommendations.

Principles:

An External Examiner is appointed to each programme or module. Boards of Studies may appoint additional External Examiners to cover specialised academic areas within a programme. External Examiners are typically appointed for four years, with the possibility of a one-year extension. The External Examiner appointment process operates in line with the City’s External Examiners Policy and the relevant areas of the Assessment Regulations, both of which are informed by UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance: External Expertise.


The External Examining process applies to all award-bearing programmes. Arrangements for research degrees are tailored to the nature of the provision.

15

Institution-level responsibility is delegated via the Deputy President and Provost, to the Academic Lead for External Examining. The Board of Studies (BoS) responsible for the programme considers nominations at School-level. At institutional level the nominations are considered by the appointed Academic Lead for External Examining. An overview of themes from External Examiner reports is presented to Senate each year.

Scope of Activity:

City has in place approximately 250 External Examiner appointments, covering all taught programmes within City’s Schools and validated provision.

Two University-level inductions were held for newly-appointed Examiners.

Particular strengths (as identified by External Examiners) include:

i. materials held electronically on Moodle. The quality and consistency of the support provided by administrative staff.

ii. the receptiveness of the Programme Directors and Module Leaders to suggestions and critiques from the External Examiners, with respect to programme and module improvements

iii. the variety and appropriateness of assessment on programmes and modules. iv. Programme Directors and Module Leaders ensuring the content delivered to

students is current and relevant. vi. confidence in the quality and standard of the taught provision delivered and

awarded by City.

Future Enhancements include:

i. communication of Assessment Board attendance expectations and dates at an earlier stage.

ii. the use of statistics and provision of data in advance of the Assessment Board in order to digest, analyse and interpret the information to facilitate a more informed contribution at the board.

iii. to enhance the wording of the External Examiner appointment communication, with emphasis on the contractual obligations of both parties, including confidentiality and protection of data (General Data Protection Regulations).

iv. review of City’s online reporting medium in response to sustained comments over a period of time, from External Examiners. Alternative formats are currently being investigated.

g) Student Complaints, Academic Appeals, Academic Misconduct and Fitness to Study

Overview:

Procedures are in place for managing student complaints (about specific aspects of their experience), academic misconduct, academic appeals (against marks or decisions awarded by Assessment Boards) and for proactively managing concerns about a student’s wellbeing and/or behaviour which may pose a significant risk.

Principles:

Student cases are managed in accordance with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education’s (OIA) Good Practice Framework1. The OIA framework is non-

16

regulatory, and serves as operational guidance.

Our processes are designed to focus on providing support to students and staff to enable resolution, whilst ensuring fairness and consistency in treatment of the student body as a whole, as well as for individuals.


The Deputy President and Provost has delegated authority from Senate. He is advised by Education and Student Committee which receives regular reports on activity and annual overview reports. These reports are also received by Senate.

Student ComplaintsStudent complaints are managed and considered in accordance with Senate Regulation 26: Student Complaints. The procedure operates as a three stage process. Stage 1 (Early Resolution), Stage 2 (Local-Level Resolution) and Stage 3 (Institutional Level Review).

Academic AppealsAcademic Appeals are managed and considered under Senate Regulations 20-21.b: Appeal Procedures.

Academic MisconductAcademic Misconduct is managed and considered in accordance with Senate Regulation 19: Assessment (Section 5.7). Senate Regulation 13: Student Discipline may also apply.

Fitness to StudyFitness to Study is managed and considered in accordance with Senate Regulation 10: Fitness to Study.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA)A student may take a complaint to the OIA on receiving confirmation that all internal procedures for considering their complaint or appeal have been exhausted at their institution. The OIA refers to any case submitted by a student as a “complaint” regardless of the nature of the original issue. The OIA expects an institution to comply with its recommendations within prescribed timescales. The time limit to take an appeal to the OIA is 12 months.

Year reflected on: 1 January-31 December 2018 (This is due to the reporting requirements of the OIA)

Scope of Activity:

Academic AppealsSchools processed 573 Stage 1 level Academic Appeals across all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, a decrease from 647 in 2017. Student and Academic Services subsequently received 65 Stage 2 requests from students for review, a decrease from 76 requests received in 2017. Of the 65 subject to final stage review, 16 were upheld and referred back to the relevant School for action.

Student Complaints31 student complaints were processed by Schools, a small increase on the 26 processed in 2017. 8 of these complaints progressed to the final review stage, of which one was partially upheld.

1 The OIA is an independent body set up to review student complaints. Free to students, the OIA deals with individual complaints against Higher Education Providers in England and Wales.

17

Academic MisconductSchools initially investigated 137 instances of alleged academic misconduct. Of these, 125 cases were upheld and a sanction applied. 2 cases were referred to the City Disciplinary Panel under stage 2.

Fitness to Study13 referrals were processed by Schools. 8 of these were addressed at Level 1 and 5 progressed to Level 2. OIA ActivityAll institutions that subscribe to the OIA are required to issue a Completion of Procedures Letter to confirm that a student’s case has exhausted the internal procedures and may be eligible for review by the OIA. City issued 77 Completion of Procedures Letters in 2018, a decrease from 98 in 2016.In May 2019, the OIA published Annual Statements for all providers subscribing to the OIA in 2018. This covered complaint investigations by the OIA that had been completed within the calendar year ending December 2018.

Data provided in this Annual Statement revealed that in 2018, the OIA completed reviews of 22 cases against City, compared to 21 in 2017. Of these, 4 were not eligible for review and 18 were concluded to be ‘not justified’.

Particular strengths (within City) were identified as:

Response rates to requests for information were faster than average for the sector. Staff had engaged with the OIA’s outreach programme. (this is the OIA series of

seminars, workshops and webinars on best practice and guidance)

Future Enhancements A review of the Fitness to Study regulations will be carried out, in response to an

OIA good practice recommendation, to consider suitable amendments to the grounds for appeals under this regulation.

The OIA is increasingly will be making regulations, policies, guidance and decisions more accessible and easy to understand through the use of plain English. Work will continue throughout 2019/20 to collaborate with stakeholders to review documentation and ensure that students are not being prevented from engaging with our policies and procedures due to unnecessary language barriers.

h) Research Degree Provision

Overview:

The Research Degrees Framework applies to all full and part-time research students, including those registered on a research degree programme validated at a partner institution, academic staff with a responsibility for the supervision and examination of research students, administrative staff who have a role in supporting academic staff and external stakeholders. This is underpinned by Senate Regulations, Policies and Guidance specific to research degree provision where it differs from taught programmes.

Principles:

The Framework contains core principles of City’s commitment to academic support and development of Research Students, alongside continuous development of our services.

18

This is linked to external frameworks such as the QAA Quality Code and the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers.

The University’s Research and Enterprise Strategy targets a step-change in the percentage of research students submitting within the standard period of study, underpinned by researcher development training and opportunities to participate in research publications and conferences to enable students to progress to careers in academia, should they desire.


Research degree policy and provision is overseen by Senate and supported through the Graduate School Committee, which is advisory to the Dean of the Graduate School.

Changes to research degree provision, such as academic policies, are typically considered by the Committee and then subject to consultation with academic Schools prior to recommendation to Senate.

Within Schools, Boards of Studies are responsible for the approval of the admission, monitoring and progress review, examination and award of individual research students, and for monitoring the delivery and evaluation of research degree programmes, typically developed to a Research & Enterprise or a Research Programmes’ Committee. Key performance data is collected by Schools or the Graduate School and reported to Senate as required.

Scope of Activity:

• 537 students, with 171 in writing up status• 133 examinationsSchools have taken a strategic approach to funding research student scholarships, which have driven significant increases in applications from modest investments (SASS 300% above target from 1 studentship per department). As noted at Periodic Review events, access to funding and fee-waivers remains the key determinant in students choosing City.

Several Departments have undergone Periodic Review for their research degree programmes, many for the first time. The quality of supervisors has been a consistent area of good practice, with Departments asked to consider subject-specific training (e.g. research methods) at FHEQ Level 8.

The Postgraduate Research Experience Survey was conducted in Spring 2019. School and student engagement was lower than hoped, and we will therefore explore alternative methods of gaining and, most importantly, acting on student feedback in the year ahead.

Concerted focus by Schools on timely completion of research students has improved the University’s Performance Indicator from 50 to 60%. This is behind target, and particular focus will be given to policy and process for part-time students in certain Schools in the coming year

Enhancement activities undertaken during 2018/19:

The Vice-President (Research and Enterprise) led the ongoing review of support for Research Students, with recommendations for a Doctoral College and institutional Board of Studies endorsed by the Executive Team and Senate for implementation in 2019/20.

Led by the Associate Dean (PGR) in SASS, City is now a member of the Bloomsbury Postgraduate Skills Network, allowing City students to access research skills training at

19

several other Central London universities.A new Guide for Research Supervisors has been written, to complement the existing Guide for Research Students

Research Students who teach have been employed at Graduate Teaching Assistants, with an employment contact from HR separate from any studentship.


Implementation of a replacement system for Research and Progress will take place in 2019/20. This provides an opportunity to review and enhance data quality in the student systems that support research degree programmes.

The cyclical review of research degree policies will continue. Particular focus is to be given to student recruitment and appointment of Graduate Teaching Assistants in 2019/20, in support of strategic objectives to increase student numbers.

Work is underway for an institutional Good Practice in Research Week, to include sessions tailored for a PhD audience.

Implementation of a new Doctoral College will support institutional consistency on the application of research degree policies and regulations, in furtherance of strategic priorities and ensuring progression milestones for students are reviewed fairly.

i) Education with Others and Flexible Delivery – Partnerships and Validation

Overview:

Partnerships City’s Partnerships Policy sets out the approach to quality and standards for provision delivered by one of City’s Schools in partnership with another organisation, which leads to a City award or that leads to guaranteed admission to one of the City’s programmes. Partnership provision includes joint programmes, access/feeder arrangements, franchised provision and off-site delivery of City’s programmes.

ValidationValidation is a process whereby City recognises the quality and standards of programmes delivered and designed by an approved institution as equivalent to its own. Successful students receive a certificate, diploma or degree from City. Through validation, the University takes ultimate responsibility for the quality and standards of the validated programmes. The University needs to satisfy itself that the approach being applied is no less rigorous than that applied to programmes offered internally so as to meet national and international Higher Education requirements. City’s validation arrangements are covered by the Policy on Validation.

Principles:

• The University is responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in its name. The academic standards of awards developed and delivered through partnership arrangements are equivalent to those delivered solely by the University.

• The University is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the quality of learning opportunities offered through a partnership or validation are at an appropriate level to enable the student to achieve the academic standards required for the award.


Institutional oversight arrangements were revised in 2018 and a single Collaborative 20

Provision Committee now oversees the development and implementation of City’s quality and standards framework, for both validation and partnerships. Superseding the former Validation and Institutional Partnerships Committee and the advisory Partnerships Sub-Committee.

Scope of Activity:

• Partnership provision: 1282 students on 27 partnership arrangements.• Validated provision: 642 students on 8 programmes at 5 institutions. (A new

programme ‘PG Cert Advising MP’s on Parliamentary Procedure’ was validated with the House of Commons Service during 2018/19 to launch in October 2019).

Activity in 2018/19:

Enhanced delivery of guidance for academic and professional services staff in Schools relating to the approval process for partnership programmes has now been embedded.

A process for considering international partnership proposals in collaboration with the Internationalisation Committee has now been established.Future Enhancements:

Work will continue to develop a consistent process for the transfer of academic credit to a City award for student mobility opportunities to conclude work initiated through the development of a revised Student Mobility policy due to be approved in 2019/20.

Part 3: Educational Quality Support and Enhancement

a) Annual Programme Evaluation

Overview:

21

Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) is one of City’s primary evaluation methods for assuring the quality and continual enhancement of programmes. The APEs also play an increasingly important role in assessing progress against strategic priorities and gauging support requirements. It draws on evidence including student feedback, reflects upon the impact of previous actions, and is designed to support the dissemination of good practice and enabling oversight of the way in which strategic priorities are implemented at programme level.

Principles:

All taught and research degree programmes are expected to complete an Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) in collaboration with students, and an action plan is developed ensuring continuous reflection and development.


APEs are completed for all programmes. Tailored approaches exist for collaborative provision and research degrees. When compiling APEs, programme teams review programme-related management information and External Examiner reports.

They also reflect on various sources of student feedback considered throughout the year. This includes:

Discussions at Staff-Student Liaison Committees and Student Experience Committees.

Module evaluation outcomes. Results from the institution-wide internal survey, Your Voice. Results from the National Student Survey (NSS), Postgraduate Taught

Experience Survey (PTES) or Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES).

APEs for internal and partnership provision are approved by Boards of Studies on behalf of Senate. Institutional consideration of key themes arising is facilitated through reports to Education and Student Committee.

Year reflected on: 2017/18 (APEs submitted in 2018/19 reflected on the previous academic year)

Scope of Activity:

80 Undergraduate APEs submitted 129 Postgraduate Taught APEs submitted 14 Postgraduate Research APEs submitted

The overall quality (i.e. completeness / comprehensiveness) of all completed APEs is analysed by Student and Academic Services to provide assurance of City-wide review and compliance with academic standards. All 2017/18 APEs were received by the agreed deadline and the overall quality for each School is very high.

The introduction of a School-managed critical reader (peer review) activity, the one month extension to the submission deadline and the positive engagement with the five APE workshops held between July and October 2018 have collectively had a very positive impact on the overall quality of the information and detail provided within the 2017/18 APEs. The majority of APEs have provided an effective and robust overview of the health of the programme, including good practice items and comprehensive action plans.

22

Particular strengths identified included:i. Many programmes provided an extensive analysis of strengths and concerns and

provided details of the future direction of the programmeii. Changes were made to programmes as a direct result of student feedbackiii. Various sources of student feedback were considered, including SSLCs and

survey results

Enhancements

In May 2018, Senate approved a proposal to review and revise the APE guidance and form for 2018/19 to align with the requirements of City’s KPIs, Subject Level TEF and the NSS.

Key changes include the following:

The forms have been numbered into clear sections 1 – 5 in order to streamline the information being requested and avoid duplication.

Section 2. Executive Summary: has been developed to capture KPI and TEF criteria narratives.

Section 4. Reflection on Programme Management Information: A space alongside the data now explicitly requires programme team to reflect on the data being reviewed,

b) Student Surveys and Action Plans (Includes NSS, Your Voice, PRES, PGT)

Student Surveys Overview:

City conducts an annual suite of surveys to gain feedback on student satisfaction, the institution’s performance and to identify issues that need to be addressed.

The surveys comprise: Your Voice 1 (Undergraduate (UG) Year 1 internal survey) Your Voice 2 (UG Year 2 internal survey) National Student Survey (NSS) (UG Year 3, national survey) Postgraduate Taught Survey (PGT) (PGT students, national survey) City have

opted to take part in the pilot this academic year 2018/19 Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) (PG Research students

internal survey)

Principles:

City invites students to participate in one programme-related survey per year. Students participate in the surveys anonymously. All surveys take place in a single ‘survey window’ in the spring term. This principle enables the University to work in conjunction with the Students’ Union to undertake focused promotional work with the aim of eliciting high rates of participation.


Question sets for Your Voice Surveys are designed to mirror the NSS.

23

Question sets for the NSS, Postgraduate Taught Survey and Postgraduate Research Experience Survey are set nationally. Summary reports for Your Voice 1 and 2, NSS, and PRES are reported to Education and Student Committee, with further reports going to Senate and Council for the NSS results.

The Office for Students (OfS) piloted a new Postgraduate Taught Survey (PGT) in which City took part. The survey remained open until 16th August 2019. Data will be received from the OfS in early 2020.

The Deputy President and Provost meets with Programme Directors to discuss programme NSS results. Programme-level action plans in response to NSS results are incorporated into the Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) process. A full analysis report on NSS 2019 and trends across a 3 year period has been compiled and will be shared with colleagues and committees during September 2019. Additionally, ExCo has created an NSS sub-group which will consider broader actions required to improve NSS scores.

Voice 1 and Voice 2 The overall response rate for YV1 in both 2018 and 2019 remained the same at

24%. There has been a -1% decrease in the overall response rate for YV2 in 2019 (24%) in comparison to 2018 (25%)

Overall satisfaction has risen by 3% in YV1 and decreased slightly to -6% in YV2 Student satisfaction for the Students’ Union rose by 1% in YV1 and decreased by -

3% in YV2. City’s overall score calculated as an average across all questions has decreased

by 3% for YV1 and 9% for YV2. Transition to University has remained the same at 67% for first years.

NSS

In 2018 the response rate was 78%, however the 2019 NSS survey received a response rate of 75% highlighting a -3% decline

The average of questions 1-25 saw a decrease of 1.6 percentage points (to 76.7%), resulting in a decrease in our position from 4th to 10th place in London.

City Students’ Union ranked 25th nationally and 2nd in London for question 26 City is now ranked 110th out of 130 Times Good University Guide institutions (down

18 places from last year) for overall satisfaction (Q 27), whilst we have fallen from 6th to 14th in London.

No themes have seen an increase in score year-on-year with the largest decreases for Organisation and Management (-2.7%) and the Teaching on my Course (-2.4%). City’s best performing area remains learning resources but this fell by 1.0% compared to last year. 24 out of 27 questions saw a decrease in % agree with the largest falls for ‘Q16. The timetable works efficiently for me’ (-5.0%), ‘Q9. Marking and assessment has been fair’ (-4.9%) and ‘Q2. Staff have made the subject interesting’ (-4.0%).

PRES

The response rate was 22.5%, 98 students completed the survey out of a population of 436. The response rate decreased from 2017 by -18.8%. In 2017, 250/606 or 41.3% of eligible students completed the survey.

Only three courses, Psychology Research Programme, Electrical/Inform/Systems Engineering Research Programme and Industrial Application of Transport Research Programme, met the publishable threshold.

Only two Schools, SASS and SMCSE, met the publishable threshold At University level there was a 4% decrease in overall experience from 78% in

2017 and 72% in 2019

24


The OfS will publish a Provider feedback survey for those taking part in OfS postgraduate survey pilot between 12 August and 30 September.

The Deputy President and Provost will lead on NSS action planning, supported by Student and Academic Services for 2019-20.

c) Module Evaluations

Overview:

Module evaluation assesses student satisfaction at that level of delivery. The University operates a common question set for module evaluation to ensure consistency of approach and measurement across all provision. Programmes also engage with students through informal discussions during the modules, and through the Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs).


Collated evaluations are reviewed within Schools through academic and executive structures. At institutional level, aggregate results are presented to ExCo and Senate. A systematic process is in place to produce and monitor action plans for modules scoring below 3.5 (on a scale of 0-5).

Scope of Activity:

Term 1 : 921 surveys were conductedTerm 2 : 1376 surveys were conducted

24% of modules achieved a response rate of 80% or above (compared to 29% in 2017/18)

22.4% of modules received scores of 4.5 or above for overall satisfaction (compared to 21.6% in 2017/18)

3.9% of modules received a score of 3.5 or less for overall satisfaction (compared to 5.7% in 2017/18)


The current module evaluation process has been in place since 2011 and has expanded to encompass all taught undergraduate and postgraduate modules. In 2018/19, work progressed in delivering the outcomes of the Module Evaluation Process Review endorsed by Senate in July 2018. This included the drafting of an institution-wide policy on Module Evaluation which will be finalised in the 2019/20 academic year. A business case to purchase an online module evaluation system is due to be considered by the Resource Allocation Management Board (RAMB) in Autumn 2019.

d) Peer-Supported Review of Education

Overview:

Peer-supported review of education is a collaborative developmental activity which focuses on improving/developing/sharing aspects of academic practice through non-judgmental peer input or advice. The review focuses on practice (i.e. what is observed)

25

rather than on the individual; and each partner to the reviewed event reflects on the review to draw conclusions for improvement of his/her own practice. In addition staff may use evidence from their review when applying for promotion and for internal and external teaching awards.

The peer review process was reviewed and revised in 2016 and a new policy was implemented in 2017.

Principles:

All those who are involved in any teaching activity i.e. including Visiting Lecturers and PhD students should engage in this process at least once per year.


The policy is monitored through the appraisal process in Schools to monitor engagement. Anonymous reflections from the peer supported review of education are collected to elicit data at School level and good practice that can be shared.

Outcomes:

The policy has now been in place for three years and monitoring as noted above is undertaken within Schools. However there is an option for those engaging with the process to submit an anonymous reflection about their review. An analysis was undertaken of the 48 reflections that were submitted during the first year 2016/2017 and these demonstrated that staff engaging with the process had used the review process to look at face to face teaching and online, teaching materials and curricula and assessment and feedback activities thus ensuring a range of academic practice can be reviewed. Their participants were very positive about the process and the opportunity to engage in a reciprocal review and discuss their practice with each other. There were examples of good practice being shared about engaging students in class, ensuring materials for students took account of inclusivity and meeting student needs as well as providing feedforward for students in assessment feedback.

In addition staff and research students who undertake the first module of the MA Academic Practice Learning, Teaching and Assessment all have to complete one peer review as part of this module which introduces them to the process of peer review when they first start to teach. Additionally all completing the Professional and Personal Development module (the last module) of the PG Cert Academic Practice have to reflect on two peer reviews and this annually involves 50 staff.

This involves approximately 160 staff and students annually. It enables them to see the value of this process early in their career and many have reported how much they enjoyed the process and that they would continue to engage in this.

Part 4: Governance Framework

a) Report on the operation of Senate in relation to academic quality and standards

26

Senate met on five occasions in 2018/19.

The composition of Senate, set out in Ordinance C1, is at Appendix 3. The Appendix also gives details of attendance at Senate in 2018/19 and contains a table showing the attendance at meetings of Senate of independent members of Council. Key topics covered in Senate meetings included the following:

Major Strategic Discussions: Doctoral College Board of Studies, Internationalisation in the Curriculum, Module Evaluation Process Review, Subject-Level TEF, Student Mental Health / #stepchange Programme, Support for PhD Students.

Major Approvals: Interdisciplinary Centre, Guidance on Rules & Requirements for external supervisors and consultants.

Senate Regulation Approvals/Revisions: Ordinance C1 Senate - Research and Enterprise Committee Terms of Reference, Regulation 5b Standing Orders for Boards of Studies and their Sub-Committees, Regulation 19 Assessment Regulations/Programme Regulations, Regulation 4 Senate’s Committees, Regulation 7 Emeritus Titles, Regulations 20, 20b, 21, 21b Appeals Regulations, Regulation 25 Physical Format, Binding and Retention of Theses, Regulation 28 Appealing a Decision made by a City Research Ethics Committee.

Senate Policy Approvals/Revisions: Graduate Teaching Assistants amended Policy and Equality Impact Assessment, Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy, Student Bullying and Harassment Policy, Viva Voce or Oral Examination Policy: Use of Videoconferencing Policy and Guidance Note, Audio Recording of Research Degree Viva Voce Examinations, University Admissions Policy: Fraudulent Applications, Count Me In: Taught Student Attendance Policy, Framework for Development and Review of Academic Policy and Guidance, Guidance Note for PhD by Prior Publication.

Monitoring Reports & other discussion items: Report on Preparations for REF2021, Student Case Activity 2018, Internal Audit Reports (UKVI, Student Appeals, Admissions, Assessment Boards), Postgraduate Research Student Learning Outcomes, Research and Enterprise Annual Report, Library Estate Project, Prevent Duty Compliance, LEaD Training Module for Graduate Teaching Assistants, Student Experience Committee Reports, Student Survey Activity, Assessment Feedback Turnaround Times, External Examiner Annual Reports, Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) Postgraduate Taught and Postgraduate Research Programmes Report, Module Evaluation Outcomes, Undergraduate Annual Programme Evaluation Report, Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies Summary Report, Assessment Board Monitoring, Short Courses, Sabbatical Leave, Performance Report on KPI/PIs, Annual Research Integrity Report, ARQM 2018 Reports, Periodic Review Thematic Report, Education and Student Strategy 2016/21, OfS Registration, Industrial Action Quality & Standards Working Group Report.

b) Reports on the operation of sub-committees of Senate including Boards of Studies

Many activities critical to quality and standards are delegated by Senate to its Sub-committees, notably its Boards of Studies and its Assessment Boards. Details of Senate delegations are at Appendix 4. Senate maintains oversight of the work of its Sub-committees through the receipt, at each meeting, of verbal updates on the work of Sub-committees and the receipt of minutes of the Sub-committees listed below and of two Executive Advisory Committees which are concerned with academic quality and standards, the Graduate School Committee and the Research & Enterprise Committee. Senate has agreed that in future the Research & Enterprise Committee will report to Senate on research issues, and Senate Regulation 4 has been amended accordingly.

27

Key areas of work carried out by sub-committees of Senate during 2018/19 included the following:

AGC: Scrutiny of Senate Regulations 4, 5b, 7, 19, 20, 20b, 21, 21b, 25, 28, 29, Membership of Senate Sub-committees, Composition of Senate, Ordinance C1, Appointment of Interim Chair and Deputy Chair of SREC, Research Ethics Teaching, consideration of Doctoral College Board of Studies.

Educational Quality Committee: Consultation on Senate Policies and Regulations, Annual Assurance Report Action Plan, Annual Programme Evaluation Reports, Periodic Review, Internal Audit Report on Prevent Duty Compliance, Subject-Level TEF, PSRB Monitoring Reports, Sector updates, External Examiner Annual Reports, Lecture Capture, Module Evaluation Process Review, Office for Students Registration, QAA Quality Code, Student Surveys, UG Assessment Review, Student References, Contract Cheating, University of London Quality Report, Academic Year Structure Review, Employability, Augar Review, EU Web Accessibility Directive.

Boards of Studies: Annual Programme Evaluations and Actions Plans, UG/PG Module Evaluation, Student Voice, External Examiner appointments, reports and responses, Special Schemes of Study, Assessment Feedback Turnaround Times, Programme Committee Reports, Assessment Board Reports, Monitoring Reports, TEF, Sabbatical Leave Reports, Partnership Provision, Enterprise Short Courses, Periodic Review Reports, Professional Body Reports.

Research & Enterprise Committee: Annual Research Quality Monitoring, Research & Enterprise Strategy Action Plan, Interdisciplinary Centre, REF2021, Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF), Research Project Participant Recruitment, PhD Student Support, Research Funding Applications and Income.

c) Overview of management actions taken by the Executive in relation to academic quality and standards.

Student progression, student satisfaction, student employability and research inputs and outputs are all scheduled as topics for discussion at each meeting of the Executive Team and the Executive Committee as part of the first section of the agenda (covering the ‘Big Six’ issues for City).

Additionally, the Executive Committee:

Discussed: Student Experience Surveys (NSS, Your Voice 1 & 2, PTES, PRES), Student Recruitment, TEF, Student Engagement and Attendance Monitoring, the Vision and Strategy 2026 (V&S26), Module Evaluation, Industrial Action Quality and Standards Working Group, Internationalisation in the Curriculum, Assessment Turnaround Times.

Approved: Actions in response to recommendations in the Integrated Student Support Review, the Student Protection Plan, recommendations to improve support for PhD students, the refreshed Education & Student Strategy, recommendations to conduct an Annual Policies Review.

Part 5: Key findings of independent reports on quality and standards (i.e. that sit outside the quality and standards framework)

a) Internal Audit Reports on quality and standards

28

Internal Audit carried out the following audits relating to City’s quality and standards framework and reached the following judgements:

Student Appeals: an adequate level of assurance can be given to the adequacy and effectiveness of the system of internal control.

Assessment Boards: a substantial level of assurance can be given to the adequacy and effectiveness of systems of internal control.

Admissions: an adequate level of assurance can be given to the adequacy and effectiveness of the system of internal control.

UKVI: an adequate level of assurance can be given to the adequacy and effectiveness of the system of internal control.

Prevent Duty Compliance: it was confirmed that the University is on track relating to its training and safeguarding actions.

Student Records Management: an adequate level of assurance can be given to the adequacy and effectiveness of the system of internal control.

The outcome of the internal audits, along with their recommendations will be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee as well as Senate. Actions relating to quality and standards will be embedded in work overseen by relevant Senate sub-committees and Executive advisory committees.

Educational Quality Committee agreed to the proposed audits of External Examiners and Annual Programme Evaluations and Periodic Reviews to be undertaken in 2019/20.

b) Other independent reports

An external consultant was commissioned to undertake a review of Integrated Student Support, forming part of this year’s operational plan for the Education and Student Strategy. ET and Deans considered the report arising from the review in May 2019, broadly endorsed all recommendations and prioritised initial actions in relation to professional service organisational arrangements for student support in Student & Academic Services, LEaD and Schools.

In July 2019, ExCo subsequently reviewed proposals from the Directors of LEaD and Student & Academic Services that would create a more joined up approach to student support services at institutional level as well as a formal connection with professional service student support functions in Schools. During 2019/20, action to embed these changes will progress. Additionally, work will take place to progress actions in response to broader recommendations in the ISS Review, including revisiting matters relating to Personal Tutoring.

29

Appendix 1: Updates & Action Plan 2019/20

This appendix provides (i) an update on the actions taken in response to the action plan appended to the 2017-18 report (received in October 2018). In relation to plans for this coming year, action is covered by the Education & Student Strategy implementation plan plus some additional actions specifically relating to quality and standards set out in the second table of this appendix.

Action Summary of work to be undertaken Owner Key Contact Expected end date

Oversight

Policy DevelopmentAdmissions Policy The Admissions Policy will be reviewed and agreed at

Senate – this is in line with all the updates and agreements of the sub-policies within the Admissions Policy.

James Birkett

Dominic Davis September 2019

EQC

Senate

Student Mobility policy Revisions to forms enabling the implementation of the Student Mobility Policy (‘Replacement Module Mapping Approval’ and ‘Partner Institution Grade Conversion and Assessment Approval’) were noted, and current practices in schools relating to credit transfer discussed at the Collaborative Provision Committee on 6 March 2018. Further research into individual school circumstances was required in order to enable more detailed discussion at the next meeting. Student & Academic Services to obtain further details from schools in relation to credit transfer practices and requirements.

S&AS Richard Appleby (Assistant Registrar)

June 2020 Collaborative Provision Committee

Senate

Review of research degree policies

Review schedule is ongoing, with a priority on oldest policies and amendments that will have greatest impact.

S&AS Richard Alderman Assistant Register (Research Degrees)

July 2020 Graduate School Committee

Senate

Policy on extensions for submission of assessed work

Educational Quality Committee has approved the latest proposals for the Policy on Extensions to Student Work. Following the committee’s request to investigate the

S&AS Helen Fitch Assistant Registrar (Quality)

Summer 2020

EQC

Senate

30


Oversight

feasibility of developing a technological system for managing late submission, further discussions between IT, LEaD and QUAD are due to take place in the summer.

The possible solutions for the management of late submission will be presented to EQC in the 2019/20 academic year. The final Policy on Extensions and Late Submission of Student Work will be submitted to Senate in 2019/20.

Assessment feedback turnaround

On-going work to ensure compliance with the turnaround times for providing students with feedback on assessed work. Non-compliance reports and action plans to ensure compliance will continue to be required from Schools on a termly basis.

S&AS and Schools

Helen Fitch Assistant Registrar (Quality)

Ongoing EQC

Senate

University policy on Visiting Lecturers review

Following PPR processes a gap was identified regarding visiting lecturers and their access to induction, support and resources. LEaD to review the University policy on Visiting Lecturers in relation to programme development and delivery and to manage any further work.

S&AS Pam Parker (LEaD)

June 2020 EQC

Senate

Process Development Undergraduate Offer Schemes

The activity across undergraduate admissions offer schemes will be reviewed. This will see an analysis conducted of the current performance of unconditional offer scheme cohorts in the past – with a recommendation made to the UARWG and ExCo.

James Birkett

Dominic Davis September 2019

EQC

External Examining Report

Greater use of statistics and provision of data in advance of the Assessment Board to be reviewed in order to digest, analyse and interpret the information to facilitate a more informed contribution at the board.


June 2020 EQC

Quality and Standards To undertake required amendments to University S&AS, R&E Richard Alderman September Senate, Graduate

31


Oversight

Framework for Doctoral College

regulations and policies to allow effective ownership of research degrees provision by the new Doctoral College

(Assistant Registrar, Research Degrees)

2020 School Committee, Boards of Studies

Review of Research and Progress system for research students

Timeline for procurement has been agreed with IT Services; with an aim to pilot in Spring 2020 for full transition Summer 2020.


Summer 2020

Graduate School Committee ESC

Research Degree Completion Rates

Completed. KPI was reported to Senate in July 2019, an improvement from 50 to 60% has been achieved but remains below target of 70% for this time. Focus on specific programmes and part-time students in 2019/20.

S&AS and Schools

Richard Alderman Assistant Register (Research Degrees)

Completed Graduate School Committee

Institutional data warehousing for research degrees

Institutional data warehousing for research degrees will be developed further, in order to allow senior committees to review annual progression, upgrade, completion, and examination statistics to support timely completion and inform strategic enhancements. Awaiting establishment of new Doctoral College and agreement on College performance indicators


January 2020

Graduate School Committee

Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) Review 2018/2019

Completed. Revised APE forms and guidance for 2018/19 were published in June 2019.

S&AS Georgia Moustaka (Quality & Standards Officer)

Completed EQC

Module Evaluation Action Plan

On-going. During 2018/19 the actions arising from the review recommendations were prioritised. The updated scope of module evaluation has been defined and work has commenced on the action plan. Senate received an update on progress in July 2019.


2019/20 EQCSenate

32


Oversight

Further activities are planned for 2019/20 and will include exploring the feasibility of moving surveys online to reduce costs and increase accessibility, and sharing best practice for student and staff engagement with the surveys.

a) Approval process for partnership programmes

Completed. A new process for the initial evaluation of international partnership proposals, designed in response to the need to evaluate a wide range of international partnership proposals including those falling outside the definition of Collaborative Provision, was considered by the Collaborative Provision Committee on October 2018.

In addition to evaluation by QUAD (for Collaborative Provision), all proposals would be evaluated by IPaD who would conduct initial due diligence checks.

As an enhancement of the existing Stage 0 Form, the new Initial Evaluation Form incorporates all aspects of the Stage 0 approval process with no change to requirements for Collaborative Provision approval.

S&AS Richard Appleby (Assistant Registrar)

Completed Collaborative Provision Committee

Protected characteristics in relation to Extenuating Circumstances

Work will be carried out on looking at protected characteristics in relation to Extenuating Circumstances, Student Complaints, Academic Appeals and Academic Misconduct.

Identifying trends means that work can be carried out on making sure City is giving the appropriate support.

S&AS Yewande Akindele(Compliance Manager)Sian Thurgood (Interim Deputy Head of Student Experience and Engagement)

July 2020 ESC

Explore additional university funding for Studentships

City should consider reviewing policy on PhD funding, as part of supporting the growth and strength of the doctoral student body and the overall research culture.

S&AS Assistant Registrar (Research) to

January 2020

Graduate School Committee

33


Oversight

These issues are expected to be addressed as part of the ongoing Review of Support for Research Students.

explore scope for new studentships with the Head of Graduate School.

Strengthen Alumni Relations

There is a general need across taught and research programmes to continue to strengthen alumni relations with support from the Development and Alumni Relations Team (DART). The DART are currently in the process of developing their strategy and working with the Schools and professional services to define those processes.

DART Cristina Feliz Summer 2020

TBC

Strengthen Student Representation

To continue to strengthen the student representation process by working closely with City Students’ Union to ensure that Student Representatives are supported to undertake their role (with training, support on creative approaches to gather insight to understand the views of their peers). City Students’ Union and City, University of London have reviewed the student representation system in 2018/19, the review and subsequent recommendations are due to be presented to Senate in October 2019.

Students’ Union, and Student Experience and Engagement Team

Sian Thurgood (Deputy Head of Student Experience and Engagement)

Summer 2020

TBC

Learning and Teaching Constructive AlignmentThere is a need to continue to nurture best pedagogical practices on marking and assessment with support from Associate Deans Education and LEaD.

Staff to continue to ensure clearer information on assessment through use of constructive alignment.

Schools to continue work with LEaD Liaison Officers for advice and guidance. ADEs to consider with LEaD ways of streamlining support for staff to nurture best

LEaD Liaison Officers, ADEs

Professor Pam Parker

Summer 2020

EQC

34


Oversight

pedagogical practices on marking and assessment to ensure fair and consistent assessment marking and feedback practices.

Staff can be signposted to existing LEaD guidance (e.g. Assessment Toolkit) and University policies and processes around assessment and feedback.

International aspectsAcademic staff to continue to review the international aspects of programmes and modules. This is an area identified for development where work has started on collecting case studies, and developing an international toolkit.

Periodic Review Process Roles and Responsibilities

There is a need to have update and share ‘who does what’ document so that professional staff are clearer and feel supported in their roles and responsibilities.

S&AS David Ross (Quality & Academic Development)

January 2020

EQC

Consistent information provided to students

Streamline programme administration and publication, in consultation with stakeholders

S&AS David Ross (Quality & Standards Office) and Seán Hogan (Quality & Academic Development)

Summer 2020

EQC

External FrameworkCompetition and Markets Authority (CMA) Guidelines implications

To implement actions arising from the internal audit of compliance with consumer law. Actions will continue to be in progress throughout 2019/20 with T&Cs and the Student Protection Plan reviewed annually.

S&AS Yewande Akindele(Compliance Manager)

July 2020 EQC

35

Appendix 2: Quality and Standards Short Guide

IntroductionCity, University of London aims to deliver excellent programmes in an environment that supports students to be successful at University and in their future careers. To manage this, City has a framework of policies and procedures that underpin our educational provision to provide assurance of academic standards and the continuing quality of programmes. The Quality and Standards Short Guide (QSSG) provides a brief summary of City’s approach.

Academic standards The threshold level of achievement required for a

student to successfully achieve their academic award.

Quality assurance A range of policies and procedures designed to

safeguard academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities.

Academic quality How well the learning opportunities provided

support students to achieve their academic award and prepare for their future.

EnhancementTaking deliberate action to ensure continual

improvement of the student learning experience.

The University's Governance structure includes a framework of responsibilities delegated from the Council. Senate has responsibility for all academic policies and regulations and takes oversight of the development of the City’s educational provision. School Boards of Studies are sub-committees of Senate and have delegated authority for the maintenance of academic standards and quality within their academic subject areas. The Deputy President & Provost is responsible for overseeing academic quality, quality standards and enhancement matters. The Educational Quality Committee is a board that provides advice and guidance, and makes recommendations to the DP/Provost and to Senate.

Reporting to the Deputy President & Provost:

Student and Academic Services supports Schools, the Executive Team and partner institutions in the strategic development and assurance of the quality of education awarded by City. It also works in close liaison with the Students' Union and with other Professional Services on the student learning experience.

Learning Enhancement and Development (LEaD) supports staff and students to develop and create new, innovative and responsive learning opportunities with the aim of enhancing academic practice, educational development and technology enhanced learning.

The Quality Assurance FrameworkThe Quality Assurance Framework articulates the core principles that inform City’s approach to quality, quality standards and enhancement. It comprises a range of policies and procedures that are articulated in detail through the Quality Manual and the Validated and Institutional Partnerships Handbook.

The information below highlights the broad elements covered by the Quality Assurance Framework.

City recognises the importance of establishing policies and procedures for recruitment, selection and admission that are fair, clear and accurate, and in accordance with our Equal Opportunities Strategy and Single Equality Scheme.

The programme approval and amendment processes are designed to ensure the development of programmes that demonstrate:

Strategic fit and viability High quality learning opportunities and robust academic standards Research-informed curricula Alignment with external factors like professional body requirements and the UK Quality Code

36

Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) and Periodic Review (PR) provide regular mechanisms to review the success of programmes, to monitor academic standards and to identify areas for enhancement.

High quality programmes require appropriate student support and information.

The student voice is central to the City’s approach. City works in partnership with students and the Students’ Union to ensure that student views are fully represented in the governance structures and inform the local and strategic development of education. Formal mechanisms – student surveys and student representation - are complimented by other less formal opportunities for engagement.

City sets out expected values and behaviours of students and staff in City and You.

The Student Disciplinary Policy and Regulations sets out the context in which a disciplinary process may be invoked.

City aims to provide a high quality experience for each student but it is recognised that on occasion a student may be dissatisfied with or concerned about an aspect of his/her experience. Policies are in place for the management of complaints.

The assessment of learning is integral to the City's commitment to provide high quality education and to underpin the academic standards of awards made to students. City's Assessment and Feedback Policy provides the context in which assessment operates and outlines the activities to be undertaken by staff to support student learning and maintenance of standards. Clear policies are in place to support the management of appeals.

External Examiners are appointed for all taught provision that leads to a City, University of London award or award of credit. External Examiners play a critical role in supporting the maintenance of academic standards and overseeing the assessment process. They produce annual reports that inform review processes.

City offers a diverse range of research degree programmes both internally and through our validated institutions. The research degrees’ framework sets out the key principles of City in its management of research degree provision.

Validation is a process whereby City recognises the academic quality and standards of programmes designed and delivered by a partner institution as equivalent to its own. Institutional Partnerships may contain a mixture of provision designed and delivered by an approved/validation partner and/or one or more Schools at City. Quality and standards are managed and governed centrally through the leadership of the Dean of Validation, advised by the Validation and Institutional Partnerships (VIP) Committee, and a framework set out in the VIP Handbook.

For School-managed partnerships City makes an award or award of credit for provision that operates at programme level, normally in one School. This activity is managed and governed at local level in accordance with the framework for quality and standards.

Contact Student and Academic Services: http://www.city.ac.uk/about/education/academic-services

Further Information

Quality Assurance Agency UK Quality Code:http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx

Framework for Higher Education Qualifications: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-A1.aspx

Subject Benchmark Statements: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-A2.aspx

Higher Education Academy:http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/

37

Appendix 3: Strategic Information based on HESA submission

Student Numbers - Rounded Full Time Equivalents

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18Undergraduate 8175 8390 8960 9239 9551Postgraduate 4625 4845 4850 4860 4977

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18United Kingdom 7690 8045 8330 8608 9243Other European Union 1610 1545 1615 1551 1482Non-European Union 3505 3650 3860 3940 3803

Number of Programmes

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19Undergraduate 46 42 45 45 42Postgraduate 124 125 130 140 136

Class of Degree

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/181st 21.3% 20.9% 23.0% 20.5% 22.8%2:1 49.6% 49.0% 48.7% 48.9% 48.8%2:2 23.0% 24.2% 22.9% 24.6% 23.8%3rd 1.9% 3.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.6%

38

Appendix 4: Senate Composition - Ordinance C1.3

i. The following Ex-Officio members: a) President (Chair) b) Chairs of the following Standing Committees of Senate:

• Boards of Studies • Academic Governance Committee • Educational Quality Committee • Research Ethics Committee • Collaborative Provision Committee

c) Vice President (Strategy & Planning) d) Dean of City Graduate School e) Director of Student and Academic Services

The Deputy Chair of a Board of Studies may attend in place of the Chair of the Board on occasions when the Chair is unable to attend.

ii. Non Ex-Officio members Elected members of Category A staff to equal the number of ex-officio staff posts and to include at least two from each of the academic discipline Board of Studies areas (i.e. excluding the Board of Studies in Learning Development). All are elected for a period of three years, renewable. Category A staff comprise the entire electorate for this election. One additional elected member from Category B Staff (with an alternate) where the Category B staff comprise the entire electorate for that election. Note: Category A staff = Staff on full time and fractional academic staff contracts including independent researchers but excluding research assistants and research fellows. Category B staff = Staff on Visiting Hourly Paid Lecturer Contracts

iii. Student members A maximum of five students including the three sabbaticals and up to two other students nominated by the Trustee Board, ensuring that the student members include at least one undergraduate, one postgraduate taught and one postgraduate research student.

Note: The Trustee Board may delegate its power to make nominations to the Students’ Union Executive Committee.

Other officials will attend Senate to present papers or take part in discussion when invited to do so. The Director of Library Services will always be invited to attend.

39

Senate Attendance 2018/19

40

Composition Membership

Cou

nt

Mee

ting

17.1

0.18

Mee

ting

12.1

2.18

Mee

ting

13.0

3.19

Mee

ting

15.0

5.19

Mee

ting

10.0

7.19

(a)

Ex-

Offi

cio

Sta

ff

President (Chair) Professor Sir Paul Curran 1 Y Y Y Y YDirector of Student & Academic Services Ms Susannah Marsden 2 Y Y Y Y YVice-President (Strategy & Planning) Professor Zoe Radnor 3 NM NM NM Y YVice-President (Research & Enterprise) Professor Andrew Jones 4 Y Y Y A YChairs of theStanding Committees of Senate:

BoS in Arts & Soc Sciences Professor Chris Greer 5 A Y Y Y Y

BoS in Business Studies Professor Marianne Lewis 6 A Y Y Y NMBoS in Business Studies Professor Paolo Volpin 6 NM NM NM NM YBoS in Mathematics, Comp Sci & Eng. Professor Roger Crouch 7 Y NM NM NM NMBoS in Mathematics, Comp Sci & Eng. Professor Abdulnaser Sayma (Interim) 7 NM Y NM NM NMBoS in Mathematics, Comp Sci & Eng. Professor Rajkumar Roy 7 NM NM Y Y YBoS in Health Sciences Professor Debra Salmon 8 Y A Y A ADBoS in Law Professor Chris Ryan (Interim) 9 Y Y NM NM NMBoS in Law Professor Andrew Stockley 9 NM A Y Y YBoS in Learning Development Professor Susannah Quinsee 10 Y Y A A YAcademic Governance Committee Professor Zoe Radnor Y Y NM NM NMAcademic Governance Committee Professor Andrew Jones NM NM Y A NMResearch Ethics Committee Professor Peter Ayton 11 Y Y Y Y YEducational Quality Committee Professor David Bolton 12 Y A Y Y YCollaborative Provision Committee Professor Laurence Solkin 13 Y S S Y Y

Dean of City Graduate School Professor Ken Grattan 14 A Y Y Y Y

(s)

Non

Ex-

Offi

cio

Sta

ff

Elected members of academic staff to equal the number of ex-officio staff posts and to include at least two from each of the Board of Studies areas.

Arts & Soc Sciences (to Jul 20) Professor Jean Chalaby 1 A Y Y Y AArts & Soc Sciences (to Jul 19) Professor Mireia Jofre-Bonet 2 Y A A NM NMArts & Soc Sciences (to Jul 20) Dr Rachel Cohen (Senior Elected Senator) 3 Y Y Y Y YArts & Soc Sciences (to Jul 20) Dr Xeni Dassiou 4 Y Y A Y YBusiness (to Jul 21) Professor Charles Baden-Fuller 5 S Y Y A ABusiness (to Jul 19) Professor Anthony Neuberger 6 Y Y Y A YBusiness (to Jul 20) Professor Elena Novelli 7 Y A A Y AHealth Sciences (to Jul 20) Dr Dave Flinton 8 Y A A Y YHealth Sciences (to Jul 20) Dr Chris Flood 9 Y A Y NM NMHealth Sciences (to Jul 21) Ms Lucy Myers 10 Y Y Y Y YMaths, Comp Sci & Eng (to Jul 19) Dr Anton Cox 11 Y Y Y A AMaths, Comp Sci & Eng (to Jul 21) Dr Richard Goodey 12 Y Y Y Y ALaw (to Jul 21) Professor Susan Blake 13 Y Y Y Y YLaw (to Jul 21) Mr Keith Simpson 14 Y Y Y Y Y

One elected member from Visiting Staff (to May 21) Mr Liam Devine 1 Y Y Y Y Y

(c)

Sst

uden

ts

A maximum of five students nominated by the Trustee Board one of whom should be the President of the Students Union. At least one from each of the following categories – undergraduate, postgraduate and research.

Ms Kristina Perelygina, President 1 Y Y A Y NMMs Tuna Kunt, President (July 2019 -) 1 NM NM NM NM YMs Tuna Kunt, VP President 2 Y Y A Y NMMr Saqlain Riaz, VP Education (July 2019 -) 2 NM NM NM NM YMs Nazia Bharde, VP Activities & Development 3 Y Y A Y NM

Ms Rania Salim, VP Community & Wellbeing (July 2019 -) 3 NM NM NM NM Y

Research Student Rep 4 NM NM NM NM NMMs Patricia Nascimento PGT Rep 5 NM A A A A

Independent Members of Council – Senate Attendance 2018/19

Name Date of Meeting No Council member available to attend 17th October 2018Dame Lynne Brindley 12th December 2018Sir John Low 13th March 2019Ms Hunada Nouss 15th May 2019No Council member available to attend 10th July 2019

Governance and Senate Delegation Structure

41

42

Documents

€¦ · Web viewExecutive summary. The Annual Assurance Statement provides oversight of the key City academic quality and standards developments for Senate and Council. Student