Higher Education Quality Council

HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIP AUDITS
SOUTHAMPTON INSTITUTE
and
INCIATIVA DE FORMACION EMPRESARIAL, MURCIA, SPAIN
DECEMBER 1996

ISBN 1 85824 333 5

PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

1 This is a report of an audit, carried out by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the quality assurance arrangements for a collaborative partnership between Southampton Institute and IFE Murcia, (hereafter referred to as IFE), leading to the BA (Hons) in Marketing and Promotion and the BA (Hons) in Business Administration awarded by The Nottingham Trent University. It forms part of a series of pilot audits of overseas collaborative partnerships undertaken in 1996. The audit included a visit to IFE Murcia in May 1996. Further information about these audits is contained on the inside cover of this report. Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the Institute, is attached as an annex to this report.

2 HEQC examined Southampton Institute's overall arrangements for quality assurance in a visit to the Institute in 1995 which reported in 1996. The quality assurance arrangements of the collaborative provision of The Nottingham Trent University, which include Southampton Institute, were reported in HEQC's 1996 Audit Report on The Nottingham Trent University.

3 The Council is grateful to Southampton Institute and IFE for the willing co-operation provided to the members of the audit team.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

3 The audit of the partnership between Southampton Institute and IFE was designed to examine the policies and procedures used by the Institute to satisfy itself of the academic quality and standards of the award being offered in the name of The Nottingham Trent University. Prior to its visit to Spain, the audit team received briefing documentation related to the partnership and, from its consideration of these papers, identified a number of areas for more detailed discussion and scrutiny. A limited amount of additional documentation was also sought and received from the Institute and LEE. A preliminary meeting was held on 1 May 1996 with senior officers of the Institute, to assist the team in its preparation. During the visit to Murcia, which took place on 20 May 1996, the team met IFE's Principal and other senior management and administrative personnel, a group of part-time and full-time teaching staff, and a number of students registered on the degree programme. The audit team comprised Professor G Chesters, Dr P A J Easy and Professor T J Kemp, auditors, and Miss A R Hynes and Mr P R Williams for HEQC. The team wishes to express its appreciation of the co-operation it received from all those whom it met during the visit.

THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

4 Since 1992, under the terms of a formal agreement, Southampton Institute has been granted powers by The Nottingham Trent University for the 'accreditation of the awards offered in Southampton'. The agreement was initially for the joint validation of courses, but in 1994 the University granted the Institute 'delegated authority for the award of both taught and research degrees'. The current agreement does not, however, allow the Institute to validate programmes leading to the University's awards at other institutions, whether these are in the UK or overseas. This constraint explains the Institute's decision to concentrate its off-campus provision on franchising arrangements and what it calls 'outreach', defined as the offering of courses taught by Southampton Institute-employed staff on overseas campuses (eg, at Athens and Alicante).

5 Responsibility for the overall management of the Institute's quality assurance and enhancement processes lies with the Director of Academic Quality and the Academic Quality Service. The key document in this context is the Quality in Courses Manual, the latest edition of which dates from July 1995, that is, shortly after the main approval events in respect of the collaborative arrangement that forms the focus of this report.

6 The Institute's corporate strategy on franchising is linked to the vision statement that 'the Institute will enhance its quality, size and diversity whilst developing three main attributes', one of which is 'competitive advantage'. This in turn is to be achieved by promoting 'enterprises through education, training, research and academic consultancy'. The Director of Corporate Development shares with relevant deans the responsibility for promoting the franchise of full-cost long courses in the UK and overseas (where links are to be with 'reputable overseas establishments'). The Institute sees the satisfaction of overseas demand for vocational courses, provided that it does not offend the position of governments or any of their departments, as fully compatible with the aims stated in its corporate strategy.

BACKGROUND TO THE PARTNERSHIP

7 The IFE, Murcia, was established in 1994 as the Iniciativa de Formacion Empresarial, at that time bringing together partners who previously operated separate consultancies in the Murcia region; it currently describes itself as the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Empresa, a title used since its legal recognition by the regional authorities as a private organisation licensed to offer higher education courses. Its four main activities are undergraduate level courses; short courses in updating skills in adult learners; training contracts with local businesses; and business consultancy.

8 The IFE is situated in the south-eastern Spanish city of Murcia, on the ground floor of a city-centre block in premises which include a computer laboratory and a growing library, at the time of the audit visit, situated in part of the Director's office. There are six refurbished classrooms with full portable audio-visual facilities. A private study room is also available.

9 The Institute's collaboration with IFE, began in spring 1995 when an approach was made to the Institute by the British Council which, in Spain, plays a dynamic role in 'brokering' collaborative arrangements between interested partners. Two tailored programmes were validated by the Institute as its programmes with the aim of franchising both to the IFE: the BA (Hons) in Marketing and Promotion and the BA (Hons) in Business Administration. Only the latter course recruited in October 1995. The medium of instruction is Spanish. Some 20 students were registered in 1995-96 for Level 0 of the four-year programme: entry, with the agreement of the Institute, is subject to the standard requirements of university degree courses in Spain, for example, the Curso de Orientacion Universitaria (COU).

ESTABLISHMENT AND INITIAL APPROVAL PROCESSES

Initial approval

10 The process of initial approval of the course and establishment of the franchise was undertaken at a time when the Institute was revising its section on franchising in the Quality in Courses Manual. The new section (published in July 1995) offers a carefully thought-out and much more detailed procedure than previously. It appears that this revised procedure, although not formally in force at the time, sensibly influenced the processing of the IFE proposals. Indeed, the IFE process went beyond the current minimum to the extent that the various procedural events were preceded by a visit to Murcia, in April 1995, by the Institute's Director and its Director of Academic Operations, whose detailed report, amongst other things, defined the tight timetable for approval and set-up which would be necessary if a September 1995 start were to be achieved.

11 Since the accreditation agreement with The Nottingham Trent University did not permit the Institute to validate the already existing 'degree-level' courses at IFE, the April 1995 report suggested that existing Institute courses be taken as a basis and adapted to meet conditions in Spain and 'where possible, to match the documents already drafted by IFE in terms of content'. It appeared to the audit team that the terms of the accreditation agreement with The Nottingham Trent University, as implemented in this case, had produced a situation which has given rise to a considerable degree of ambiguity in matters of course ownership. In discussions with IFE, for example, the team heard one response which acknowledged the legal ownership by the Institute, but another which contended that, although the degree clearly did not belong to IFE, ownership of the course content was shared, since it was jointly developed. The team recognises that this developmental process had to tread an unusual path between what might seem to be a form of external validation (disallowed by The Nottingham Trent University); internal validation of a new course; and its franchising to a co-developer, if it were to stand any chance of being established; but it would wish the Institute to reflect on the need to make the matter of ownership clearer, not least to IFE itself, in the formal agreement. The team also notes that The Nottingham Trent University, through its representatives on the validation panels, raised no concerns about the hybrid nature of the development.

12 In May 1995, Institute academic staff visited Murcia to work intensively with IFE staff in the preparation of course documentation to be submitted through the internal processes in the Institute. Their attempt to follow the advice contained in the report of the April 1995 visit in fact produced (unsurprisingly, perhaps) courses tailored to such an extent that they could scarcely be called modifications of the existing Southampton courses, although the course documentation submitted presented them in such a light. Recognising that it was faced with something other than modification (or at least programmes that exceeded by far the threshold level of 10 per cent modification to existing courses which requires formal approval of the Academic Board), the Institute rightly guided the proposals along a route akin to that for new programmes.

13 The initial Nottingham Trent University/Southampton Institute Joint Validation event, held in Southampton in May 1995, chaired by the Director of Corporate Development and including an external representative as well as a representative from The Nottingham Trent University, initially felt unable to recommend approval of the courses on the grounds of insufficient information and less than fully adequate documentation. Amendments were duly made. The panel members also received the report of the Franchise Validation Panel (see below, paragraph 15). In the light of this new information and written responses from members of the Panel, the chairman of the Joint Validation Panel submitted a recommendation to the Academic Board of 21 June 1995 that the two degrees be approved, subject to a number of relatively minor conditions. The Board accepted the recommendations subject to the receipt of full documentation at its next meeting.

Validation and franchising process

14 Whereas the May 1995 Joint Validation Panel conducted what was essentially a course validation, the Franchise Validation Panel (the Institute may wish to reflect on this title's potential for confusion to outside eyes) was charged with reporting on the suitability of the franchisee institution to deliver the approved programme. The franchise validation visit took place in Murcia in June, four weeks later. It was explained to the audit team by the Institute that the new panel had deliberately contained no overlapping membership with the Joint Validation Panel. Illness had prevented the participation of the external member of the panel. A member of the British Council had been in attendance. The Franchise Validation Panel had recommended that both programmes (now presented in the newly amended documentation) be franchised to IFE, subject to one condition relating to the need for IFE to formalise its staff meetings and to forward a formal record of these meetings to the Institute. Other comments had been made on the desirability of enhancing library and IT facilities, and on the prospect of a two-year review by a small Southampton Institute team visiting IFE.

15 The report of the Franchise Validation Panel was received by the Academic Board on 21 June 1995 and the recommendation approved, subject to the receipt by the Board of full documentation at its next meeting. Final approval without conditions is recorded in the minutes of the Academic Board Meeting of 25 July 1995.

16 The collaborative arrangement was established through a formal agreement signed on 28 July 1995. The agreement defines the obligations (positive and negative) of both parties and, commendably, enshrines the principles and broad processes of quality assurance. Although there are precise termination clauses, there are no indications of what residual obligations are laid on both partners to ensure that students on courses are enabled to finish their studies. Since the course in Business Administration franchised at Murcia is substantially different from that offered at Southampton (not least in the language of instruction), it is not clear that a transfer of students to the Institute (as suggested to the audit team) would be helpful in the case of termination. The Institute will wish to consider clarifying the residual obligations that are laid on both partners to ensure that students on courses are enabled to finish their studies, should the agreement be terminated by either party.

17 The financial schedule includes an agreement by Southampton Institute to pay an annual fee to the British Council for services to be jointly agreed by representatives of the Council, the IFE and the Institute, and by IFE to cover expenses incurred by the British Council personnel in support of the courses included in the agreement. It also makes provision for the transfer of enhanced fees from the IFE to the Institute in the early years of the partnership in order to underpin the intensified activities of Institute staff engaged in establishing the smooth working of the programme. Insofar as this arrangement recognises the need to invest energy and effort into the early stages of such programmes, it is to be commended.

18 It appeared to the audit team that the two-stage process of course and franchise validation was put under considerable pressure by the tightness of the timetable adopted and by the unusual nature of the development. There are, for example, some questions which remain unclarified in the reports of both the validation and franchise validation events, and in the formal record of discussion of those reports. One concerns the nature of the reservations contained in the franchise validation report. A relatively less important matter, the formalising of staff meetings, is deemed worthy of the status of a condition, whereas central concerns about the library and other resources are not. Another uncertainty relates to the franchise validation report's comment that a small team from the Institute would visit IFE after two years to review the operation. No indication is given, either in the agreement or in the reports, of what form this review might take nor what its consequences might be. In the view of the team there would be benefit in clarifying the relative importance of points of substance made in validation reports.

19 It was clear from the audit team's discussions with the Director of IFE and the Institute's own course leader that they understood the proposed review to be connected to a further validation event relating to levels 2 and 3 of the degree, neither of which, to the best of their belief, had yet been validated. Yet the formal written record received by the team contained no suggestion that the whole of the programmes had not been validated. If, on the one hand, the Director and course leader were correct, then there are serious questions to be asked about the accuracy and fullness of the documentation received by the team and, more importantly, about the fact that students have been recruited to a course which is still subject to validation but has not been advertised as such. If, on the other hand, the written record is correct, then colleagues playing central roles in the partnership are labouring under a fundamental misapprehension. In either case there is cause for concern. It seemed to the team that the lack of a consolidated record bringing together unambiguously the essence of the separate validation reports may be at the root of such divergent views. The fact that, nine months after the event, the Director of IFE claimed never to have seen the franchise validation report, confirmed the team in its view that the basis on which the collaboration was to operate had not been given sufficient emphasis or clarity in the swift exercise of due process. The Institute will wish to consider clarifying as a matter of urgency the precise stages of the courses that have been approved through the internal validation processes and informing the Director of IFE and the course leader and ensuring that a consolidated record bringing together unambiguously the essence of the separate validation reports is available to both parties.

STAFFING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

20 Matters of staffing, particularly concerns about the predominance of part-time staff, were fully raised in the approval events. The audit team accepts the view expressed by both the Institute and IFE that, in Spain, part-time contracts (sometimes for as little as two hours' teaching per week) were a normal form of staff engagement and that this practice had the benefit, in this particular context, of bringing a wide range of fresh professional expertise to bear on the delivery of the courses. It had been envisaged at the time of validation that the major area for staff development would relate to small-group teaching and team work, but in fact most activity had centred around the procedures of the Board of Examiners and quality control systems. The formality of the latter had been emphasised. The team learnt that the condition attaching to the recommendation to the Academic Board had still not been satisfactorily met but that the Institute was insisting on the need to minute formal staff meetings. The various plans to deliver staff developments events in Southampton had not yet been realised but the team was told of the intention to send staff from the Southampton Institute Educational Development Unit to conduct a seminar in IFE.

21 The audit team was told by IFE staff that they appreciated the efforts made by the Institute to develop their awareness of quality assurance systems and fully supported the principles and practices. The frequent visits made by various Southampton Institute staff to IFE, together with the numerous formal and informal meetings between the partners, have undoubtedly served the collaboration well, establishing confidence and a spirit of openness. The energies devoted to creating this beneficial spirit by the Institute's course leader deserve special commendation.

22 IFE was also visited shortly before the course started by the Institute's Assistant Registrar, in order to familiarise IFE staff with the Institute's academic and administrative arrangements. This visit had followed the dispatch of detailed, tailored information on all matters relating to enrolment, registration, assessment and examinations, together with specific contact details should further clarification be required. The audit team was impressed by the thoroughness of this familiarisation procedure and would wish to commend it as good practice.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

23 The Quality in Courses Manual explains in detail the procedures for student assessment, which have in some cases been translated into Spanish and given further explanation for the benefit of IFE students and staff. The audit team found a reasonable level of understanding amongst the students whom it met (all of whom were necessarily at Level 0 and for whom final degree classification was still a distant concept). One set of examinations had taken place at the end of Semester 1 and the Institute had taken the opportunity to employ a former administrative colleague, now living in the region, to oversee and report on the conduct of one examination session. The report, although identifying some specific areas of concern, gave broad reassurance to the Institute that the arrangements were satisfactory. (The report also revealed that some students had left the course and it appeared that the Institute had not been so informed as required by the formal agreement.) This visit, the team noted, had been organised at very short notice but had provided the Institute with valuable information and assurance about the integrity of the examination process; the team would counsel its continuation and would wish to commend the Institute on the introduction of a formal process enabling the conduct of examinations at the partner institution to be overseen. The Institute itself envisages the possible continuation of this administrative surveillance but recognises that, as numbers grow, it may have to seek the assistance of the British Council in the matter of invigilation.

24 Semester 1 scripts were marked by IFE staff, and sent to Southampton Institute where a sample was translated and moderated by the Institute's staff. Scripts were also sent (untranslated) to the two Spanish-speaking external examiners for comment. The results, which were communicated individually to the students, were the focus of a Progress Board which met in Murcia in March 1996, chaired by the Dean of the Institute's Business Management Faculty and attended by the Institute's course leader, a Spanish language specialist from the Faculty and a colleague from The Nottingham Trent University. This first meeting, as well as processing the marks, was also seen as providing an opportunity for staff development for the six IFE staff who attended as full members.

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

25 The Institute has appointed two UK-based external examiners, both of whom have a ready command of Spanish as well as relevant academic experience. They were asked to comment on the Semester I papers and scripts. It was intended to involve them in the July 1996 Examination Board.

26 In the course of its enquiries it appeared to the audit team that the Institute's quality arrangements in respect of this programme and the assurance of its academic standards depended crucially on the Institute's course leader, who appeared from the formal agreement to be the only Southampton member of the course committee (which has responsibility for monitoring and maintaining standards and for the delivery of the course). The team wondered whether, in these early stages of collaboration at least, so limited an involvement of Institute staff could provide full assurance; and suggest the Institute may wish to consider whether more people should be actively involved in the partnership, in order to spread the workload and ensure a wider familiarity with the arrangements. The team did, however, note with approval the weightier attendance of such staff at the March meeting of the Course Committee (and, indeed, an observer from The Nottingham Trent University). The March membership seemed to match more precisely the normal composition of a course committee for programmes delivered at Southampton.

27 The audit team noted that, in the formal agreement, responsibility for assuring quality and standards in relation to the courses lay also with the IFE's course tutors although, at the time of the team's visit, these had only recently been identified.

MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS AND THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Teaching observation

28 The audit team heard from both students and IFE staff that they had experienced teaching observation undertaken by Institute staff (and, on one occasion, a member of The Nottingham Trent University's staff). Although there are predictable difficulties arising from the fact that the classes are in Spanish, these were deemed surmountable through the discreet use of a translator and Spanish-speaking Institute staff. From the perspective of quality control as well as staff development, the use of teaching observation (as envisaged in the formal agreement) seemed to the team a beneficial process in the context of overseas programmes. Certainly, both the staff and students with whom the team discussed the point expressed their appreciation of its value.

Feedback from students

29 Students' views are sought regularly, both informally and formally through the presence of a student representative on the course committee (the representative met by the audit team had received guidance on his role in order to help his effectiveness). A questionnaire has not yet been issued but a draft is in preparation for circulation towards the end of Semester 2. The students met by the team appeared to be well-informed (they had, for example, been introduced to the notion of the external examiner and knew in broad terms the relationship between IFE, Southampton Institute and The Nottingham Trent University).

30 They were, however, less than clear about their status as nationally and internationally recognised students. If only in relation to student concessions (but it goes beyond this), it would seem appropriate for the Institute to consider ways in which the formal status of students can be clarified so that IFE students, as registered students of the Institute, may benefit from such status.

31 The students met by the audit team confirmed that they had only reading rights at the University of Murcia's Library but understood correctly that the Institute was engaged in negotiations with the University in order to obtain borrowing rights. The matter is important since the library stock at IFE is, by general admission, adequate only for Level 0 teaching, although a four-year plan for the library has recently been submitted by IFE with financial resources identified and committed.

Publicity and promotional material

32 The monitoring of publicity is carried out in the Institute by the Head of International Services, to whom all draft copy is sent by IFE. The audit team saw nothing which gave it any reason to believe that the promotional material used for this partnership was in any way inadequate.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

33 In prefacing its general conclusions on the quality assurance of the partnership between Southampton Institute and IFE, the audit team would wish to remark on the severely concentrated approval processes, including programme design, validation and franchise approval, that were undertaken over a few weeks between April and June 1995, in order that students could be registered in the autumn. The telescoping of procedures left little time for maturation either of the proposals or of the relationship, or for reflection on the consequences of the partnership. This is the more significant because the partner institution is small, relatively new, and reliant upon short-term, part-time staff for most of its teaching. It also has limited learning resources. The approval procedures adopted appear to nave left some of the principal participants unsure of the formal status of the programme's validation.

34 The collaborative arrangements between the Institute and the IFE are comparatively new and the relationship is still developing and maturing. The Institute has put into place a range of mechanisms, some formal and periodic (for example, progress boards, course committees, examination boards), some flexible and gaining their value through timeliness (for example, teaching observation and staff development events). All of this bodes well for further consolidation. Nevertheless, since IFE is essentially a small private enterprise, there is inevitably a greater sense of vulnerability about the link than would be the case if the collaborating partner were a large publicly funded body. The recruitment of students in such a small enterprise is a critical economic factor and directly affects the ability to develop both human and physical resources. The continuing success of the collaboration will therefore not depend solely on the quality assurance systems exercised by the Institute but, more crucially, on the commercial viability of IFE. As the partnership develops, the Institute will no doubt wish to monitor the financial basis on which the operation rests as well as the improvement in human and physical resources foreseen as desirable before the students move towards levels 2 and 3. The experience of the Institute in other ventures has led it to pay particular attention to the early stages of the partnership and it is encouraging that the Institute is exercising a degree of oversight of this relationship which demonstrates that it takes very seriously its responsibilities for the programmes delivered by the IFE Institutions participating in the pilot audits were invited to provide an up-dating note indicating any developments in the partnership from the time of the audit to the printing of this report. A note, supplied by the Institute, is attached.

COMMENTARY TO THE HEQC OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIIP

AUDIT REPORT 1996

1. Southampton Institute welcomes this report, the contents of which are considered to be helpful and constructive. The encouragement given to the Institute's attention to detail in the support of the initial franchise validation, the early stages of the partnership and to its taking seriously its responsibilities for the programmes delivered at TEE is particularly welcome. The Institute is pleased to take the opportunity to describe how it has responded to the various issues raised. The commentary will concentrate, primarily, on matters concerned with the validation and franchising process which served as the focus of the report.

2. Following the validation events concerned with the franchise, but prior to the commencement of the 1995-96 academic session in which the audit visit took place, a review of the franchise arrangements had been undertaken. As a result, improved procedures for the approval and review of franchise operations have now been adopted and are articulated in the latest edition of the Institute's Quality in Courses Manual, (these amendments cover issues raised in paragraphs 14, 18 and 19 of the report). In addition, Memoranda of Co-operation with overseas franchise institutions are being amended to incorporate a clause which specifies the residual obligations of both partners in the event of a break-down of the franchise, in particular, as far as students are concerned (Paragraph 16 of the report refers). Such a clause is already included in, similar, long-standing agreements with UK-based colleges.

3 In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the HEQC report, clarification is sought concerning the relative importance of matters of substance raised in the validation reports, the scope of the validations themselves, and the nature of the proposed review visit. In line with standard practice at the Institute, the degree courses to be franchised were validated for a period of five years. At the franchise validation event, approval was granted to recruit consecutive cohorts of students with a franchise review visit to be made after a period of two years.

4. The principal issues raised at the franchise and course events were concerned with resource matters including staffing and staff development and the quality of course documentation. At the franchise validation event, the panel was satisfied with the existing library provision for levels 0 and 1 and welcomed the additional library support which would be available to students through the good offices of the University of Murcia. The panel considered that whilst IFE understood the importance of staff development, nevertheless, it was essential that in view of the high ratio of part-time to full-time staff members, formalised staff meetings should form a regular feature of course management.

5. The review visit, currently planned for Spring 1997, will look, initially, at the success of running the course to date. It will go on to examine IFE's response to commitments, made at validation, including both the provision of additional library resources for levels 2 and 3 and the implementation of a programme of staff development to meet the requirements of the further stages of the course.