(1) To provide a basis for formal quality and strategic review of the University’s academic Schools. The review will provide an evidence-based assessment of the academic performance of a School and its contributions to the strategic objectives of both the College and University. Reviews also consider the effectiveness of the internal management and operations of the School. (2) The review will provide a basis for quality assurance of a School in relation to its academic activities, organisation and management and the resourcing of these to ensure alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan. (3) A calendar of planned reviews will be published, and may be varied at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. An out of cycle review may be commissioned at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion. (4) Provision for formal reviews of Schools is an important element of the University’s planning and quality assurance framework. Generic Terms of Reference are provided, which are customised, as required, by the Vice-Chancellor. (5) For each review, the Vice-Chancellor will nominate a Senior Executive Group (SEG) member to act as the Review Sponsor of the review. The Review Sponsor will not have line management responsibility for the School being reviewed. This person will work with staff from the Planning and Institutional Performance Unit (PIPU) in the effective implementation of this Policy. The role of the Review Sponsor is outlined in clause 22 below. (6) All academic Schools are covered by this Policy. (7) A Review of a School will: (8) Reviews of Schools will normally be conducted on a seven year cyclic basis. A calendar of planned reviews will be published, and may be varied at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. (9) Timing of reviews will take account, to the extent possible of planned professional accreditation visits and other external reviews. (10) An out of cycle review may be commissioned at the Vice-Chancellor's discretion. (11) A review is formally commissioned by the Vice-Chancellor. (12) The Review Sponsor, supported by PIPU, will make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor with respect to review timing, terms of reference and panel membership. (13) The Vice-Chancellor will inform the Senior Executive Group, the Academic Board (via Academic Quality Committee) and the University Council of any changes to the approved schedule following the review of the schedule each year in March. (14) The Vice-Chancellor will issue formal invitations to Panel members, and approve any customisation of the Generic Terms of Reference. Should the panel be decided through a tender, the Vice-Chancellor/Review Sponsor will approve the appointment of the successful tenderer. (15) Costs associated with the review, including the travel, accommodation (if applicable) and any other associated costs of the review panel, will be borne by the School under review. (16) Each Review Panel will include: (17) Panel members will be requested to sign a confidentiality agreement. (18) The Review Sponsor will provide recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor regarding an appropriate Chair and membership for each Panel. (19) The College Pro Vice-Chancellor and Head of School under review will be invited to comment to the Review Sponsor, in confidence, on a proposed short-list of potential panel members to identify any potential conflicts of interest. The Senior La Trobe Academic will also be asked about any potential conflict of interest with the proposed list of external panel members. (20) The proposed Panel members will be invited to comment, in confidence, on potential conflict of interest between themselves and the other proposed panel members. (21) The Planning and Institutional Performance Unit will provide support for this process. (22) The Review Sponsor plays a key role in overseeing the review process, including: (23) The College Pro Vice-Chancellor will: (24) The College Pro Vice-Chancellor plays a key role in supporting the Head of School in the implementation of the agreed Action Plan. (25) The Head of School has overall responsibility for the preparation of the self-review document. The School will receive support from PIPU in the provision of data to underpin the School’s analysis and general advice on the requirements. (26) The self-review document will be submitted to the Panel via the Executive Officer at least six weeks before the panel’s site visit. (27) The Executive Officer will ensure the Terms of reference for the review is made available to La Trobe staff via the University intranet. (28) The Head of School will meet with the review panel each day of the site visit. (29) The Head of School will nominate an administrative officer who will be allocated to work with the Executive Officer to support the logistics for the review. (30) The Review Panel will: (31) The Senior La Trobe Academic, nominated by the La Trobe Academic Board, will be drawn from another College. (32) The Senior La Trobe Academic provides a La Trobe perspective to the Panel and facilitates their understanding of the relevant operating environment and current issues. (33) Planning and Governance will appoint an appropriately qualified person to act as Executive Officer to the review panel. This person may be a PIPU staff member, or drawn from another area within La Trobe. The Executive Officer to the panel will provide professional advice and administrative support to the panel. (34) The Executive Officer will: (35) The role of the Executive Officer is fully specified in the Reviews Handbook. (36) The nominated School Administration Officer will work with the panel Executive Officer to make detailed arrangements for the smooth-running of the panel site visit, including calendar invitations, panel member travel and accommodation bookings (if applicable) room bookings, catering and other administrative duties as required. (37) PIPU has operational responsibility for the reviews process and effective implementation of this Policy. (38) The School will receive support from PIPU in the provision of data to underpin the self-review portfolio, including comparative data where available. (39) PIPU can also assist by providing general advice on the requirements of the self-review document, including suggestions on what data and information may serve as appropriate evidence for the self-review. (40) PIPU oversees the work of the panel Executive Officer, and provides support to the Review Sponsor in all aspects of the reviews process. (41) The self-review process provides an opportunity for critical self-assessment by the School, and should identify areas of achievement and success, as well as opportunities for improvement. Self-assessment focuses on both current and future performance, and includes a critical examination of how the School can contribute most effectively to the College’s and University’s strategic objectives. The School being reviewed will prepare a self-review document to summarise its performance in relation to the review’s Terms of Reference, drawing on appropriate comparative data. (42) The self-review is not a marketing document and should provide a frank, evidence-based analysis of strengths and opportunities for improvement. (43) The self-review document will: (44) The self-review document will typically be no longer than 20-40 A4 pages, excluding appendices, and must address the Terms of Reference for the review. (45) The self-review document allows the School to reflect upon and analyse operations in order to optimise future performance. Consequently, the focus of the submission is to identify future directions and strategic intentions for the School. However, to set the context for the review, it is important to briefly address the School‘s history and its present circumstances with a focus on factors that have contributed to the current operating environment and potential future outlook of the School. (46) The self-review document should include: (47) The self-review document should be used to demonstrate application of national standards as articulated by the Higher Education Standards Panel. (48) Core performance data will be sourced with the support of PIPU. Three year trend data should be provided as a default, with relevant comparative data wherever possible. (49) The following information should be included in the self-review document as appendices: (50) Planning, Budget and Review (51) Staffing Profile (52) Course Portfolio (53) Research and Research Training (54) Engagement (55) Infrastructure (56) All written submissions to the Review Panel are confidential and will be made available to the Review Panel only at least one week before the site visit. (57) The panel’s site visit schedule is prepared by PIPU, with input from the School under review and the review panel members. The Review Sponsor approves the final site visit schedule. (58) The site visit appointments, room bookings, catering and other logistics will be coordinated by the panel Executive Officer and supported by the allocated School Administration Officer. (59) The review report will be prepared in accordance with the Review Handbook. (60) Within eight weeks of the site visit a draft report will be submitted to the Review Sponsor. He/she will invite the Head of School to check the report for matters of fact and emphasis. The Review Sponsor may circulate the draft to other staff at her/his discretion, for factual checking. The report will then be returned to the Panel for consideration of comments and final sign-off by the Panel Chair. (61) The Panel will submit the final report to the Review Sponsor who will receive the report and make recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor. (62) The Vice-Chancellor will provide the Head of School and relevant College Pro Vice-Chancellor with a copy of the Panel’s report and invite the preparation of an Action Plan, using the approved pro forma. The draft Action Plan will first be submitted by the Head of School to the College Pro Vice-Chancellor and Review Sponsor for consideration. The final version of the Action Plan will be submitted by the Review Sponsor to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. (63) The Review Report is intended to be primarily focussed on the activities of the School. During the process the Panel may identify issues outside the School that impact on its capacity to fulfil its mission. These issues should be identified in a discrete section of the report, but without specific recommendations related to wider organisational matters, other than the suggestion that these matters might be reviewed in the wider organisational context. At the time of preparing the Action Plan the Review Sponsor will seek input from the University officer with accountability for the are to determine the action that needs to be taken and these details will be included in the Action Plan. (64) The Head of School will make the report available to members of the School and consult with School members as appropriate in the development of the Action Plan. (65) The Action Plan will respond directly to the recommendations made by the Panel, and will be prepared in accordance with the format provided by PIPU. (66) Where these relate to matters outside the School, the Review Sponsor will seek input from the University officer with accountability for that area and include the University actions in the draft Action Plan submitted by the Head of School. (67) The Action Plan will be submitted to the Review Sponsor within one month of the invitation to the Head of School. The Review Sponsor will provide initial feedback on the draft Action Plan and will submit the final Action Plan to the Vice-Chancellor for formal approval. (68) The Action Plan and the Panel’s Review Report will be presented to Senior Executive Group (SEG) for management approval. (69) The Vice-Chancellor will provide the Action Plan and the Panel’s Review Report to Council for governance approval. (70) A copy of the Action Plan and the Panel review’s Report will also be provided to Academic Board (via the Academic Quality Committee). (71) The College Pro Vice-Chancellor and the Head of School under review have a responsibility to monitor the implementation of the Action Plan. (72) Items in the Action Plan will be incorporated into the School Business Plan. Reporting on the Action Plan will be integrated into the School’s annual reporting against the Business Plan objectives. (73) The School will provide the Vice-Chancellor, through the Review Sponsor, with a consolidated report of progress against each relevant review recommendation at 12 months and 18 months and each following 12 months until such time as the School is due for another cyclical review. (74) The 12 and 18 monthly Progress Reports will be provided to Senior Executive Group for approval; and the Vice-Chancellor will provide a summary report to the Council and Academic Board (via Academic Quality Committee) for noting. This process will be facilitated by PIPU. (75) All confidential submissions, drafts of the review report, and notes taken during the review, will be returned by panel members to the Executive Officer upon completion of the review for confidential disposal. (76) Records and Archives Services will retain a copy of the core self-review document and the final Panel report. (77) For the purpose of this Policy and Procedure:School Review Policy
Section 1 - Background and Purpose
Preamble
General
Section 2 - Scope
Section 3 - Policy Statement
Top of PageSection 4 - Procedures
Timing of Reviews
Commissioning the Review
Review Costs
Composition of the Review Panel
Formal Appointment of the Review Panel
Role of the Review Sponsor
Role of the College Pro Vice-Chancellor
Role of the Head of School
Role of the Review Panel
Role of the Senior La Trobe Academic
Role of the Executive Officer
Role of the School Administration Officer
Role of the Planning and Institutional Performance Unit
Self-Review Process and Self-Review Document
Publication of Written Submissions to the Review Panel
Arrangements for Site Visit
Report of the Panel
Scope of the Review Report
Distribution of the Panel Report
School Response to the Report – Action Plan
Reporting on Review Outcomes
Implementation of Action Plans
Progress Reports
Records Management
Section 5 - Definitions
Top of PageSection 6 - Stakeholders
View Document
This is not a current document. It has been repealed and is no longer in force.
Responsibility for implementation – Vice-Chancellor; College Pro Vice-Chancellors; Heads of School; Executive Director, Planning and Governance.
Responsibility for monitoring implementation and compliance – Academic Board (via Academic Quality Committee); University Council; and Senior Executive Group.