QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Working Group on Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies Report to QMEC
Executive Summary
At its meeting of 1 July 2008, QMEC noted that the regularisation of the Annual Monitoring process had highlighted the fact that there was currently no institutional overview of accreditations by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. QMEC also noted that the requirements/burdens of PSRBs seemed (anecdotally at least) to be increasing. QMEC therefore established a Working Group to review UCL’s existing procedures and practice in relation to the accreditation of UCL degree programmes and courses by PSRBs. The Working Group met on 5 December 2008 and resolved, in accordance with its terms of reference, to develop and circulate a questionnaire to be sent to all PSRB-accredited programmes. The Working Group met once more on 25 March 2009 to consider a report analysing the responses to the questionnaire and to agree a set of recommendations to QMEC. This report to QMEC comprises:
- An introduction outlining the creation of the PSRBWG, its main remit and the development and circulation of the questionnaire [paragraph 1];
- Key findings arising from the responses, including the level of faculty involvement in PSRB events and the burden placed by PSRBs upon programmes and departments [paragraph 2];
- Other key points to note arising from the responses [paragraph 3];
- Summary [paragraph 4];
- Recommendations to QMEC [paragraph 5];
- Next Steps [paragraph 6];
- A table of PSRBs (as confirmed by the respondents to the questionnaire) [Annex 1];
- Full results and in depth analysis of all responses to the questionnaire [Annex 2];
- Sample questionnaire [Annex 3].
Key to abbreviations used in this note:
AC Academic Committee
AAM Augmented Annual Monitoring
AM Annual Monitoring
A&H Faculty of Arts and Humanities
FBS Faculty of Biomedical Sciences
DTC Departmental Teaching Committee
ENG Faculty of Engineering Sciences
FBE Faculty of the Built Environment (The Bartlett)
FLS Faculty of Life Sciences
FTC Faculty Teaching Committee
HERRG Higher Education Regulation Review Group
HoD Head of Department
IQR Internal Quality Review
MAPS Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
MBBS Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery
PSRB Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
PSRBWG Working Group on Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
QMEC Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 At its meeting of 1 July 2008, QMEC noted that the regularisation of the Annual Monitoring process had highlighted the fact that there was currently no institutional overview of accreditations by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. QMEC also noted that the requirements/burdens of PSRBs seemed (anecdotally at least) to be increasing. QMEC therefore established a small Working Group to review UCL’s existing procedures and practice in relation to the accreditation of UCL degree programmes and courses by PSRBs.
1.2 At its first meeting on 5 December 2008, the PSRBWG resolved to (i) develop and agree a questionnaire to be sent to all programmes which were subject to accreditation by PSRBs (ii) receive an analysis of responses to the questionnaire, (iii) consider and agree any recommendations to QMEC arising from the responses and (iv) follow up with those programmes/departments who had expressed concerns about PSRB accreditation, particularly in terms of the perceived burden or nature of the process. At its meeting of 25 March 2009, the PSRBWG considered an analysis of responses and a number of preliminary proposals regarding UCL’s future procedures in relation to PSRB accreditation with a view to agreeing a number of recommendations to submit to the meeting of QMEC scheduled for 1 April 2009.
1.3 All faculties were sent details of all PSRBs (and the programmes they accredit) of which the PSRBWG was previously aware and asked to check these, notifying PSRBWG Officers of (i) any omissions or additions that needed to be made and (ii) of any items which might be out of date or wrong.
1.4 Having received corrections/additions from faculties, it was ascertained that 154 UCL programmes are PSRB-accredited. The agreed questionnaire was then circulated to these PSRB-accredited programmes.
1.5 Once responses to the questionnaire had been received, the Working Group was able, inter alia, to discern the following:
· that accreditation events were currently largely dealt with on a departmental/individual programme basis, and to consider when (and by what means) the parent faculty and/or UCL might be made aware and take appropriate action if a programme were to lose its accredited status;
· Whether PSRBs had become increasingly interventionist since the abolition of universal subject review and if they had, whether UCL might offer institutional support to programmes/departments in the face of increasing or excessive PSRB requirements by engaging in dialogue with the relevant PSRBs.
1.6 A copy of the questionnaire circulated to all PSRB-accredited programmes is at Annex 3. Programmes were asked to fill in a separate questionnaire for each accredited programme unless the responses in the case of each programme were identical. 49 questionnaires were returned, covering 133 (86%) of the 154 PSRB-accredited programmes. Table 1 below shows all accredited programmes by faculty and the number of responses received for those programmes.
Table 1 – UCL Accredited programmes by faculty
Faculty / Number of Accredited Programmes (not including stop-off points e.g. PgDip) / Number of Accredited Programmes for which a response was receivedArts & Humanities / 5 / 5
Biomedical Sciences / 23 / 23
Built Environment / 16 / 15
Engineering Sciences / 63 / 43
Laws / 9 / 9
Life Sciences / 6 / 6
MAPS / 32 / 32
Total / 154 / 133
1.7 The bar chart below shows the actual number of PSRBs by faculty, the number of responses to the questionnaire by faculty and the total number of accredited programmes that each faculty has.
Bar chart comparison: Faculty PSRBs: showing the number of responses to the questionnaire, number of PSRBs and number of accredited programmes for each faculty
1.8 The majority of PSRB activity is located within three faculties, Biomedical Sciences, Built Environment and Engineering Sciences (although one PSRB in Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the Institute of Physics, accredits a large number of programmes).
2 KEY FINDINGS
2A The PSRB burden on programmes and departments
2A.1 From the information provided by the respondents to the questionnaire, it is possible broadly to distinguish between those PSRB processes which are less involved and might be defined as “light touch” and those which are “extensive” and require a great deal of work for the departments and programme(s). A broad definition of a “light touch” PSRB accreditation process might be:
· requires minimum documentation and a short (if any), visit by the PSRB audit team (less than 1 day’s duration);
· minimal preparation time (less than 1 day’s duration);
· may involve only one initial “set-up” accreditation process;
· minimal, if any, follow-up process.
2A.2 Conversely, a broad definition of an “extensive” PSRB accreditation process might be:
· requires large amount of documentation (forms, statistical evidence etc.);
· may require detailed self-evaluation statement;
· preparation time is lengthy and involves much collation of evidence and documentation;
· visit(s) take at least a day and involve meeting a number of staff and students;
· the follow-up process is thorough and may include provision of further evidence, completion of action plans to fulfil recommendations or periodic monitoring (possibly annual) of provision.
2A.3 From these working definitions, a bar chart is presented below displaying the faculties where responses fit the above definitions:
Bar chart comparison: Faculty PSRBs showing the number of responses to the questionnaire which indicated either a “light touch” or an “extensive” accreditation process
2A.4 From the above bar chart it can be seen that those faculties where the PSRBs create the highest concentration of extensive accreditation are the Built Environment, Biomedical Sciences and Engineering Sciences. These data do not give any indication of the size of particular programmes. For large and complex programmes the PSRB accreditation process will often involve much more staff time than would be the case with (eg) a small Masters programme. Overall, the faculties of the Built Environment and Biomedical Sciences expressed the most concern regarding the burden placed on their programmes by PSRBs. In the case of the Faculty of the Built Environment, difficulties arose as a result of those programmes (such as the BSc Architecture) which are accredited by more than one PSRB, each with differing demands and processes. In the case of the Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, one programme (the MBBS) is of considerable size and represents the bulk of the faculty’s provision. At its first meeting, the PSRBWG noted the need to consider whether in the face of increasing or excessive PSRB requirements, UCL might provide support by engaging in dialogue with the relevant PSRBs and suggested that QMEC follow up comments made by those faculties who noted a disproportionately heavy or increased burden placed on them by their PSRBs, to discern whether such institutional dialogue or intervention would be appropriate or helpful (see paragraph 5.1 (d) below.
2B Perceptions of Increased Burden
2B.1 Interestingly however, overall, 35 (71%) responses indicated that there had been no increase in the PSRB requirements with 12 (24%) of these respondents stating that there had actually been a reduction.
2B.2 Only 6% of responses indicated that the burden placed on programmes and departments from PSRBs had increased. These responses were from the Faculty of the Built Environment and appeared to centre around two PSRBs which accredited the programmes, but used a different process and required different documentation.
2B.3 In the light of the above, it is interesting to note that 36 (73%) responses stated that the PSRB had made no reference to the Concordat[1], although another 5 (10%) responses indicated that changes implied that attention had been paid to it. Only 3 (6%) responses were certain that the PSRB had referred to the Concordat (the PSRBs were the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh (2) and the British Psychological Society (1). Given the lack of awareness of the Concordat demonstrated above, it is probably unsafe to assume that its implementation has resulted in the perceived reduction in burden, although this remains a possibility. The Working Group will recommend that QMEC contact the HERRG to ask for clarification of how they are monitoring the impact of the implementation of the Concordat (see paragraph 5.1 (f) below).
2C Faculty involvement in/knowledge of the outcomes of PSRB accreditation events
2C.1 Although not invited to respond to a specific question regarding the level of faculty involvement in the accreditation process, it can nevertheless be inferred from responses to question 5 (‘please provide a brief summary of the process’) that there is no specific faculty involvement in the process and that it is handled almost exclusively by the programme or department.
2C.2 It can likewise be inferred from the responses to questions 10 and 11 (see Annex 2) (concerning the follow-up procedures employed by the PSRB) that the parent faculty and/or UCL would not currently be automatically made aware if a programme were to lose its accredited status. The responses showed wide variation in follow-up procedures with 24 (49%) stating that follow up procedures were dependent on the accreditation decision, with wide variation in practice and time-scale. 5 respondents (10%) indicated that the follow up process took place regardless of the accreditation decision, usually involving an update request on progress and/or further statistical data on students. 13 (26%) stated that there was no follow-up process. Around half the responses, (26 or 53%) stated that the PSRB sent both an official letter and a report with recommendations. 12 (24%) responses indicated that the PSRB reported by letter only and 8 (16%) by a report only, with 1 response each indicating that the outcome was reported orally or by e-mail. No mention was made by any respondent of outcomes being either copied or reported to the faculty.
2C.3 Officers have also checked the Summaries of FTC Proceedings (which are submitted to AC) for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 for any indication that FTCs routinely discuss the outcomes of PSRB accreditation events as part of their normal business and it would appear from this evidence that they do not.
3 OTHER KEY POINTS TO NOTE ARISING FROM THE RESPONSES[2]
3A Positive aspects and benefits to the students of the accreditation process
3A.1 A variety of responses were received and it should be noted that many responses noted more than one benefit each. Most responses (55) indicated that accreditation was positive because it either gave students professional status or was itself a necessary step in that process, either through further application or training. This included assisting in the attainment of chartered status, or providing assurance that students had met standards for basic practice competency.
3A.2 Some 10 responses indicated that accreditation afforded some international recognition of the graduates of a programme, with obvious positive implications for the recruitment of overseas students for those programmes. 14 responses indicated that the PSRB had a positive effect on the academic provision of the programmes, including assuring standards, giving additional feedback mechanisms for students and giving an external view of the currency of programmes, which was helpful to their development.
3A.3 A small number of responses (4) stated that the PSRB offered some kind of student membership which allowed them access to additional libraries and information and events and lectures with professionals and academics, as, well as providing early networking opportunities.
3B Main focus of the PSRB (academic standards, curriculum content, fitness to practise etc.) and level of curriculum input
3B.1 Overall, the vast majority of respondents (45 and 92%) stated that the PSRBs’ main focus was on maintaining and improving academic standards. 43 (88%) stated that curriculum was also a main point of focus. Fitness to practise was also indicated as a focus by 34 (69%) of responses.
3B.2 Although there was variation in the actual practice (see Annex 2), 25 (51%) of responses indicated that the PSRB had broad input into the curriculum with programmes required to demonstrate some form of adherence or compliance. A smaller number, 7 (14%) of responses indicated that there was stronger involvement by the PSRB into the curriculum, which it largely determined.