Procedures

Review of Schools - Procedures

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

The Supervisory Organisational Structure Policy sets out the principles applicable to the cyclical review of all schools at The University of Queensland (UQ). The purpose of this Procedure is to outline the process for the conduct of those cyclical reviews.

2.0    Process and Key Controls

  1. Academic Board, through its Standing Committee, conducts the School review process on a seven-year cycle.

  2. As part of the review process, schools undertake a self-assessment process of analysis, benchmarking, critical reflection and forward-planning.

  3. The review committee considers feedback from submissions and interviews with staff, students, other members of The University and external stakeholders, and the school’s relationships with other organisational units, resourcing, resource management and organisational structure.

  4. Through the review process, the review committee provides expert comment on the degree to which the school contributes effectively and coherently to the UQ Strategic Plan, and whether the school is positioned to achieve its goals and objectives and to reach its potential.

  5. Following the review, the review committee’s report (with recommendations), the school’s response, and the advice from Academic Board Standing Committee (ABSC) are considered by the University Senior Executive Team (USET).  Academic Board then reviews the report with corresponding feedback before being submitted to Vice-Chancellor for approval.

  6. The Executive Dean and the Head of School are responsible for implementing the adopted recommendations. The implementation of report recommendations are monitored by the Academic Board Standing Committee through a twelve-month and a three-year implementation report from the School.

3.0    Key Requirements

3.1    Schedule of reviews

The Academic Board Standing Committee, in consultation with Executive Deans, proposes a list of schools to be reviewed in the following year, for consideration and approval by USET.

3.2    Confirmation of the review committee, terms of reference and duration

The membership of the review committee, duration and any modifications to the standard terms of reference of the review are proposed by the Head of School and Executive Dean. ABSC considers and nominates members review committee membership and a Chair (including reserve members), and endorses the terms of reference and duration of the review. ABSC will advise USET if changes have been made to  review committee membership, duration of the review and terms of reference proposed by the school.

USET approves the nominees, reserve list, terms of reference and duration of the review. If further reserve members are required, the addtional nominees will be considered and approved by USET.

The Provost, following consultation with the President of the Academic Board, is authorised to:

  1. approve changes to the approved terms of reference; and

  2. replace a member unable to participate in the review with a person on the USET approved membership reserve list.

The Provost will also consider any issues that are raised in relation to the proposed membership of the review committee, including late changes. The Provost will bring these issues to USET for further consideration.

3.2.1    Membership of the review committee

The minimum requirement for the composition of a school review committee is:

  • at least two external members (depending on the size and diversity of the school). One external member should be from an overseas university, where this is not possible up to two international contributors will be engaged;

  • one representative of the Academic Board Standing Committee; and

  • one member of the University community in a senior leadership role, from a cognate field.

One of the external review committee members shall be appointed to chair the review committee.

The Secretary to the review committee is a senior member of administrative staff nominated by the Executive Dean of the faculty to which the school belongs. The Secretary will typically be a senior member of professional staff.  The Secretary will be determined through discussion between the Executive Dean, the Provost and the President of the Academic Board and will be noted by USET when considering the review committee membership composition, terms of reference and the duration of the review. The Secretary is supported by the Review Coordinator, with additional administrative support provided by the Executive Support Officer in the Academic Board Office, as required.

3.2.1.1    Secretary to the review committe

The Secretary to the review committee is a senior member of administrative staff nominated by the Executive Dean of the faculty to which the school belongs. The Secretary will typically be the Faculty Executive Manager from the Faculty of the School under review.    

The Secretary will be determined by USET when considering the review committee membership composition, terms of reference and duration of the review.

The Secretary is supported by the Review Coordinator, with additional administrative support provided by the Executive Support Officer in the Academic Board Office, as required.

3.2.2    Terms of reference of the review

The terms of reference for the review provide the framework in which the school, through its self-assessment, and the review committee, through its enquiries, can analyse the school’s performance and plans in relation to appropriate and attainable future objectives.

Standard terms of reference are provided in Appendix B. Selection, modification or removal of specific terms of reference can be proposed by the Head of School, Executive Dean, ABSC or USET. Changes to the terms of reference may be appropriate when the school or one or more of its key activities has recently been, or will soon be, subject to external review (for example, by an accrediting body).

3.2.3    Duration of the review

The standard duration of a review is four days, which may be consecutive or scheduled over a period of time, depending on the needs of the review panel. A shorter (minimum three days) or longer duration can be requested if appropriate by the Head of School, Executive Dean, ABSC or USET. If it is determined that the review will be held online, the duration may need to be adjusted. The panel will meet prior to the commencement of the review to determine roles of members.

3.3    Format of the review

A review is generally conducted with review committee members in-person for the duration.

Alternative formats are available, if an in-person review (with the standard with a mix of Australia-based and international committee members) is not possible, or there are other good reasons to adopt a different format. Alternative approaches may include:

  • a review conducted online, with all members participating remotely in online meetings for interviews; or

  • a review conducted in-person with Australia-based external review committee members only, with feedback sought from international contributors (as detailed in section 3.2.1).

An online review must meet the requirements for a review as detailed in sections 3.6 and 3.7. Details of considerations and possible adjustments to make to the structure of the review are outlined in the Review of Schools Guidelines.

3.4    Submissions to the review

The President of the Academic Board invites submissions from the school, staff, students, others within the University, and external stakeholders. The submissions inform deliberation by the review committee and assist review panel members to make decisions and recommendations. The Review Coordinator sets the due date for submissions (generally one month before the commencement of the review).

3.4.1    The school’s submission

The school’s submission includes information about the school that is accurate, focused, comprehensive and informative. The submission should focus on future directions and strategic intentions for the school and include copies of the school’s future planning documents, such as strategic and/or operational plans. Planning and Business Intelligence will assist with the provision of key data to assist the school in the preparation of the submission, as well as to provide additional data that may be required by the panel during the review.

An overview of the structure and contents of the school’s submission is in the Review of Schools Guidelines.

3.4.2    Individual submissions

Invitations to make a submission to the review are sent to interested parties, including staff, undergraduate and postgraduate students of the school, heads or directors of units within the University and individuals nominated by the Head of School.

Individuals have the opportunity to request confidentiality when their submission is shared to anyone outside of the review committee by completing a Request for Confidentiality form.

3.4.3    Anonymous submissions

If an individual would prefer to make an anonymous submission (with no identifying information revealed to the review committee), they are able to contact the President or Deputy President of the Academic Board to share and de-identify their submission.

3.4.4    Release of submissions

Approximately one month before the commencement of the review:

  • all submissions received are provided to the review committee, the President of the Academic Board, the Secretary, the Provost and the Vice-Chancellor, subject to confidentiality obligations; and

  • the school’s submission is provided to the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Executive Dean,  Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Associate Deans who have been invited to meet with the review committee.

The school’s submission may be made available, upon request and at the discretion of the Head of School, to other University units, individual University staff members and to persons external to the University.

In the week prior to the review, all individual submissions received are provided to the Head of School and Executive Dean, subject to confidentiality obligations. For example:

  • in the case of students' submissions, all identifying details will be removed from the submission prior to release, unless a student requests to be identified; and

  • if an individual University staff member or a person external to the University requests confidentiality (by completing the Request for Confidentiality form), identifying details will be removed from their submission prior to release.

All submissions may be made available to any UQ-based inquirer by the Review Coordinator after the review report has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, subject to the above conditions regarding confidentiality.

3.5    Review timetable

The review timetable is developed by the Chair, the review committee, review secretary and other stakeholders as required. The Executive Support Officer organises interviews, in consultation with the review secretary.

Based on written submissions received, the panel will identify individuals to be invited to attend an interview with the panel.

A draft timetable must be circulated to review committee members, along with invitations to interviewees, at least two weeks prior to the review, and subsequent changes communicated to the committee. In developing the timetable, sufficient time should be provided to enable the panel members to consider the input to the review, as well as providing time for additional interviews as determined to be required through the course of the review.

As part of the timetable, an initial dinner hosted by the Executive Dean will be held for the review committee on the evening immediately prior to the start of the review. The Executive Dean will provide additional context regarding the University and the Faculty to assist the panel in its deliberations.

3.5.1    Stakeholder dinner

A stakeholder dinner will be held on the evening of the second or third day of the review. The Executive Dean will host the dinner which will be attended by members of the review committee and representatives of industry, government, professional bodies, employer groups, and alumni. Attendees will be considered on the basis of their relevance to the school’s activities in research, learning, and engagement.

A draft invitation list must be prepared well in advance by the Head of School for consideration by the Executive Dean, who will ensure that those attending will be able to offer insight into the school’s activities relevant to the terms of reference for the review. The secretariat will determine whether Protocol and Events need play a role. Invitations will be issued three months prior to the date of the dinner.

3.6    Committee deliberations

The review committee is required to consider all submissions and interview relevant school staff, students and other University or external stakeholders.

Interviews or other direct substantive communication from any staff, students or external stakeholders should not be made individually with the Chair or any review committee member(s). All information relevant to the review is expected to be made available to the entire review committee. The Chair is required to address conflicts of interest that may arise through the course of the review and can make use of in-camera sessions or confidential submissions, where appropriate.

At the end of the review, the review committee meets with the Executive Dean, Head of School, and President of the Academic Board and Provost to discuss the findings and draft recommendations, and presents an overview of the findings and recommendations to a full meeting of the school.

3.7    Review report

The review report is prepared by members of the review committee with support from the review Secretary.

An overview of the suggested structure of the review report is in the Review of Schools Guidelines, and a review report template is in the Review of Schools Report Template.

The report will be finalised by the Chair in consultation with the Secretary and the other members of the review committee following the review. The report should be finalised as soon as possible, but normally within two weeks after the conclusion of the review.

Initially, a copy of the review report is sent to the President of the Academic Board for review, to confirm that the report does not disclose any confidential information or include recommendations beyond the scope of the review. If the President has any comments on the report regarding confidentiality concerns or scope, the feedback is sent to the Chair for the review committee’s consideration and changes if required. When the President is satisfied that the report does not disclose confidential information and that the scope is correct, copies of the review report are sent to:

  • the Head of School, for distribution to staff in the school;

  • the Executive Dean;

  • members of ABSC, in the relevant meeting agenda; and

  • USET (as set out in section 3.8)

3.8    Response to the review report

The Head of School is required to provide a response to the recommendations in the review report. The response to the review report includes comments from the Executive Dean, relevant implementation strategies and any anticipated challenges to implementation. Wherever possible, the response should also take into consideration alignment of implementation activities with the University’s Strategic Plan.

The response should generally be finalised four to six weeks after the Head of School and Executive Dean have received the review report.

Copies of the response are sent to ABSC and the Provost.

ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and the Executive Dean to discuss the final report and response.

The review report, the school’s response, and the report from ABSC will be considered by USET, particularly to consider recommendations that may have broader university significance.  The review report and comments will then be provided to the Academic Board, prior to being sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval. An annual report of the key themes arising from reviews throughout the year will be provided by the Academic Board to USET, prior to being submitted to Senate.

Once approved, the review report, together with a composite statement from the Academic Board based on the report from ABSC, is distributed to the Head of School for dissemination to school staff and to the University Senate for noting.

3.9    Implementation process

The Executive Dean and the Head of School are responsible for implementing the adopted recommendations. The Executive Dean or the Provost may seek advice or raise specific risks with USET at any point during the implementation process. It is expected that stakeholders, including students, are consulted and involved in the implementation of the recommendations.

The Head of School is required to prepare a twelve-month and a three-year implementation report. These reports should include the initial response to the recommendations, details of the progress made on all the approved recommendations, and comments from the Executive Dean.

ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and Executive Dean to discuss the twelve-month implementation report and prepare a report on its deliberations to the Academic Board.

The three-year implementation report is noted by ABSC. ABSC may refer the implementation report to the Provost, USET, Vice-Chancellor or any relevant person or committee as required.

4.0    Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities

4.1    Chair of the review committee

The Chair of the review committee:

  • liaises with the President of the Academic Board, Provost, Executive Dean and the Head of School to discuss issues related to the school as required;

  • liaises with the review Secretary to finalise the review timetable and list of interviewees;

  • is responsible for creating an environment that is conducive to free and open discussion without prejudice to any staff member;

  • is required to address conflicts of interest that may arise through the course of the review. The Chair can make use of in-camera sessions or confidential submissions, where appropriate;

  • delegates report-writing tasks to review committee members and ensures the penultimate draft report is complete prior to the departure of members;

  • presents the draft review recommendations to the Head of School, Executive Dean, President of the Academic Board, Provost and all school staff; and

  • ensures completion of the final version of the report normally within two weeks of the review and finalises the review report.

4.2    Review committee members

The review committee members:

  • review all submissions to the review and other review documentation;

  • liaise with the Secretary to finalise the review timetable and list of interviewees, as required;

  • participate in scheduled meetings, interviews and other events during the review week; and

  • assist in the preparation and finalisation of the report as directed by the Chair.

4.3    Academic Board Standing Committee representative

In addition to the responsibilities listed at section 4.2, the Academic Board Standing Committee representative on the review committee:

  • represents the broader interests of the University and provides advice on relevant University policies and procedures, particularly relating to school reviews;

  • informs the school about the implementation process following the presentation on the review recommendations;

  • introduces the discussion on the review report at the Academic Board Standing Committee meeting when the report and response are discussed; and

  • participates, if available, in the twelve-month implementation discussion at Standing Committee and introduces the discussion.

4.4    Member from a cognate field

In addition to the responsibilities at 4.2, the member from a cognate field:

  • represents the broader interests of the University and discipline, as applicable;

  • advises the school on the rationale underlying a recommendation if clarification is required; and

  • assists in the preparation of the report as directed by the Chair.

4.5    International contributors

An international contributor is not a member of the review committee, and therefore does not participate in the review committee’s deliberations. When an international contributor is asked to participate in a review, the international contributor will:

  • review the school’s submission to the review;

  • provide written feedback on the school’s submission, which may include consideration of the school’s global focus or activities, or recommendations for the review committee to consider; and

  • participate in a meeting with the review committee to discuss their feedback.

4.6    Review Committee Secretary

The review committee Secretary plays a key role in the preparation and conduct of the review, and leads the secretariat.

The Secretary is not a member of the review committee, and therefore does not participate in the review committee’s deliberations. During the review, the Secretary reports directly to the Chair on all matters relating to the review.

The Secretary:

  • oversees the organisation of interviews and the structure of the review in consultation with the Review Coordinator, Executive Support Officer, the Chair and the President of the Academic Board, and liaises with the review committee members, the Executive Dean, the Head of School and interviewees;

  • provides support for the Chair and review committee members, and provides advice on relevant University policies and procedures;

  • facilitates and, where appropriate, undertakes follow-up action arising from review committee meetings;

  • ensures that recommendations made by the review committee are consistent with University policy and practices and drafted accordingly; and

  • takes notes during the review proceedings and assists in the drafting of the review report.

4.7    Review Coordinator

The Review Coordinator liaises with the President of the Academic Board, the Secretary to Academic Board Standing Committee and the review committee Secretary to provide support in the lead up to the Review. The Review Coordinator:

  • confirms that members of the review committee are available to attend the review;

  • sends advice from ABSC to the Executive Dean and Head of School on the finalised membership, terms of reference and timing of the school review;

  • sends invitations on behalf of the President of the Academic Board to individuals to make written submissions;

  • disseminates relevant information to the review committee and the review Secretary including the school's submission and individual submissions;

  • provides other administrative assistance during the review as required; and

  • ensures the review report is disseminated as outlined in the procedure.

4.8    Executive Support Officer

The Executive Support Officer in the Academic Board Office provides support to the review committee Secretary in organising elements of the review.

The Executive Support Officer:

  • liaises with the review committee Secretary regarding scheduling and logistics for the review, including travel, accommodation, catering and dinner meetings;

  • schedules interviewees from the schedule developed by the review committee Chair and the Secretary;

  • coordinates and any additional documentation requested by the review committee; and

  • assists the review committee Secretary to undertake follow-up action arising from review committee meetings.

4.9    President of the Academic Board

The President of Academic Board:

  • provides advice to USET on review committee membership and Chair (including reserve members), terms of reference and duration of the review as recommended by ABSC;

  • advises the Provost on requests to appoint representatives from the reserve list, and on requests to amend Terms of Reference or duration of the Review;

  • invites submissions to the Review;

  • receives anonymous submissions for Reviews;

  • participates in an interview with the Review Panel;

  • receives the draft report to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and scope of the review is appropriate;

  • presents to USET on the broad themes of the Review outcomes; and

  • provides an annual report to Senate via USET, of the key themes arising from the reviews throughout the year.

4.10    Head of School

The Head of School:

  • in consultation with the Executive Dean, makes recommendations to ABSC on the proposed composition of the review panel;

  • makes recommendations to the Executive Dean on the invitees to the stakeholder dinner, if held;

  • oversees preparation of the School’s submission to the review;

  • provides a response to the recommendations for consideration; and

  • ensures implementation on approved review responses.

4.11    Executive Dean

The Executive Dean:

  • in consultation with the HoS, makes recommendations to ABSC on the proposed composition of the review panel;

  • nominates the Secretary to the review committee as outlined in section 3.2.1.1;

  • meets with the review committee prior to the start of the review, on the first day to discuss the faculty's perspectives on the school; towards the end of the review to discuss the draft recommendations; and by request during the review.

  • hosts the initial dinner for the review committee, held on the evening immediately prior to the start of the review;

  • approves invitations to, and hosts the stakeholder dinner held during the review;

  • meets with the review committee, by request, and in any event at the conclusion of other business each day, in order to discuss the progress of the review and to provide guidance on the drafting of recommendations and commendations;

  • meets with the review committee towards the end of the review to discuss the draft recommendations;

  • meets with ABSC regarding the review report;

  • presents to USET on the review outcomes as they relate to the University's broader strategic priorities; and

  • oversees the implementation and follow up on review recommendations.

4.12    Academic Board Standing Committee

The Academic Board Standing Committee:

  • in consultation with the Executive Dean, make recommendations to USET on the schedule of reviews;

  • consider and nominate the membership of review committees (including Chair and reserve members), Terms of Reference, review duration for approval by USET;

  • ABSC meets with the Provost (or delegate), the ABSC representative on the review committee, the Head of School and the Executive Dean to discuss the final report and response;

  • provide a report to USET on the review and comments received, particularly to identify recommendations that may have broader university significance;

  • provide the review report and comments to the Academic Board; and

  • oversee 12 month and three-year implementation reports and report to the Academic Board, USET or Provost as required.

4.13    University Senior Executive Team

The University Senior Executive Team:

  • approves the annual schedule of reviews and membership of panels;

  • individual members participate in interviews, as appropriate;

  • considers the review report, with comments from the Executive Dean, Head of School and ABSC, with particular attention given to recommendations that raise systemic observations or which have strategic significance for the University; and

  • addresses university-wide matters that may be identified through the reviews.

5.0    Monitoring, Review and Assurance

The Academic Board, through its Standing Committee (ABSC) and with support from the Review Coordinator, administers and monitors the cyclical seven-year school review process. The review process includes iterative liaison with the University Senior Executive Team (USET) to ensure alignment of school reviews with the University’s strategic objectives.

Specifically:

  • ABSC reviews and endorses the seven-year school review schedule, with advice from the Executive Deans, annually. The schedule of reviews for the upcoming year is submitted to USET for approval.

  • on the recommendation from the Head of School, ABSC nominates the review committee members and endorses the terms of reference and the duration of each review, which are submitted to USET for approval.

  • the review report, the school’s response, and the report from ABSC are considered by USET, particularly to consider recommendations that may have broader university significance.  The review report and comments are provided to the Academic Board, prior to being sent to the Vice-Chancellor for approval.

  • ABSC, with the Provost, monitors the implementation of the review recommendations twelve months and three years after approval of the review report by the Vice-Chancellor.

  • USET to receive reports on implementation of review recommendations to monitor university-wide and strategic matters.

These procedures are monitored and reviewed by ABSC.

6.0    Recording and Reporting

The following reports will be produced as part of the review process:

Report Title

Report Content

Report Producer

Report Recipient

Review report

Recommendations and commendations following the review of the school.

Review committee

ABSC, Provost, senior executives who were interviewed, Academic Board, USET, Vice-Chancellor, school staff, all individuals (other than school staff) who were interviewed or made a submission

Response to the review report

The school’s response to each recommendation in the review report, with implementation strategies.

Head of School

Executive Dean

ABSC, Provost, Academic Board, USET, Vice-Chancellor

ABSC statement on the review

A statement on the review report and post-review discussion held at ABSC.

ABSC secretariat

ABSC, Provost, senior executives who were interviewed, Academic Board, Vice-Chancellor, school staff, all individuals (other than school staff) who were interviewed or made a submission

Twelve-month implementation report

The school’s updated response to each recommendation over the twelve-month time frame, and comments to the extent to which review recommendations have been implemented.

Head of School

Executive Dean

ABSC, Provost, Academic Board, Vice-Chancellor

Three-year implementation report

The school’s updated response to each recommendation over the three-year time frame, and comments to the extent to which review recommendations have been implemented.

Head of School

Executive Dean

ABSC, Academic Board

Records are retained in accordance with UQ’s legislative requirements.

7.0    Appendix

7.1   Appendix A: Definitions

Online review – a review where all review committee members participate through online meetings. External members (both Australia-based or overseas) do not travel to UQ in order to participate in the review.

7.2    Appendix B: Standard terms of reference

Terms of Reference

Custodians
Academic Registrar

Guidelines

Review of Schools - Guidelines

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0  Purpose and Scope

These guidelines apply to reviews of schools under Organisational Unit Reviews Policy and Review of Schools Procedures. These guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation for and conduct of reviews.

2.0  Guidelines

2.1      Preparation for the review

2.1.1    Timeline for school review preparation

Preparation for School Reviews begins approximately 15 months prior to the review. A timeline is provided on the Academic Board’s ‘Reviews’ website to give direction to schools on the general timing of events for the pre-review, review, and post-review phases of the review process.

2.1.2    Structure of the school’s submission

The school’s submission should be as short as possible to present all required information and future plans. While not being prescriptive of the exact format or length of the school’s submission, the preferred approach is for the submission (excluding appendices) to be approximately 50 pages in length. Appendices should also be as concise as possible, only presenting essential information.

The school’s submission should comprise four parts, as follows:

2.12.1    Part 1 – Executive summary

The executive summary describes the contents of the school’s submission, including comments from the Head of School, and could include suggestions for areas of focus for the review committee.

2.12.2    Part 2 – The history of the school

This brief section describes:

  • the origins and histories of the disciplinary groups of the school and the history of their organisational relationships (i.e. the precursors to the current school), and amalgamations of disciplines/disciplinary groups;
  • major outcomes of the previous review;
  • any factors which might have had an impact since the previous review (e.g. restructures, changes in a funding formula, changes in community perceptions); and
  • any other significant changes since the previous review.

2.1.2.3   Part 3 – The school at present

This section includes an analysis of the school’s current status and operations particularly with regard to the school's teaching and learning programs, research and staffing, as relevant to the terms of reference. An overview of the school's goals and priorities over the last few years should be provided with an analysis of the extent to which these goals and priorities are being achieved. Budget information should be provided to inform discussion.

The school should provide relevant data in the performance areas identified in the terms of reference. Performance must be explicitly linked to the University Strategic Plan and operating priorities as well as to the school’s strategic plan, and faculty strategic and operational plans.

The school should decide how best to represent itself and its disciplines in its submission. The submission includes analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (data can be included in the appendices). This should align with the future direction of the school/discipline(s) and how the school is contributing to that direction and/or realigning its activities in keeping with developments.

The submission should highlight any particular strengths of the school that are not covered by the core performance data, as well as data on established, nationally/internationally recognised, discipline-specific performance markers.

Comparable data for other relevant schools and/or disciplines within and external to the University should be supplied. Where possible, the school should benchmark its teaching and research activities with two comparable institutions, nationally (preferably Group of 8) and/or internationally (for example, a member of Universitas 21). The primary purpose of benchmarking is to assist in determining the direction of the discipline and the quality of the scholarship.

If it is decided that Group of 8 and Universitas 21 institutions do not provide an adequate or feasible basis for comparison, schools should provide reasons for such unsuitability and select another appropriately-regarded national or international institution, or similar sources of data (such as Australian Government benchmark data). The school should identify benchmarking partners early in the preparation process and advise Academic Board Standing Committee once identified.

2.1.2.4    Part 4 – The school in the future

This section is the focus of the submission. It describes plans and strategies for the future development and improvement of the school over the next three to five years. It is expected that the school submission should include any relevant strategic or operational plans which show how the school contributes to the University’s overall strategy and goals. If the submission includes strategic or operational plans then there is no need to rewrite or reproduce content of those plans within the review text.

The review committee provides an objective assessment of the school's current and future directions and strategies, and to either confirm or recommend changes to those plans.

Therefore, this section articulates goals and courses of action that are tied to:

  • Performance indicated by the data given in the section The school at present. Strategies for maintaining excellence and improving identified deficiencies should be included. An analysis of the data and an assessment of the school's strengths as well as factors preventing progress is required;
  • Areas of potential growth or deliberate refocus. Some of these areas might arise from the benchmarking exercise or involve predictions of future directions of academic disciplines; and
  • Contribution to the faculty's and the University's strategic and operational plans, including how the school contributes to operationalising these plans.

In each case, consideration should be given to the school’s human, financial and physical resources to enhance performance, to meet the school’s objectives and to achieve its targets. Key performance indicators should be identified clearly, alongside strategic priorities that link appropriately to specified timelines, milestones and resource allocations.

2.1.2.5    Appendices

The appendices should include the school’s future planning documents (such as the strategic and operational plans), budget, benchmarking data, and any additional data as relevant. The appendices should only include information that is likely to be of direct use to the review committee. It is not necessary to include details of all staff (such as photographs or brief biographies) or lists of published work.

Where possible, appendices should be presented in a separate document to the submission.

2.1.3    Briefing sessions

A briefing session for Heads of Schools and other senior members of schools is held in the year prior to the review by the President of the Academic Board to explain the review process.

A briefing session for staff and students of each school being reviewed is held prior to the review (generally 4-8 months prior) by the Academic Board Standing Committee (ABSC) representative and the President of the Academic Board on the review committee to explain the review process, advise the school of the review committee membership, and elaborate on the involvement of staff and students during the review week.

2.1.4    Review timetable

Organisation of the review timetable is developed by the Chair, the Review Committee, the Review Secretary and other stakeholders as required, and is guided by the following principles:

  • Scheduled opportunities for committee members to discuss and reflect on issues that arise during interviews should be incorporated into the review timetable, including between interviews. It is not necessary that discussion occur only at the beginning and end of the day.
  • Noting the limited time available, the selection of stakeholders for interview should be focussed to seek contributions on key issues arising in the review. Interviews should not crowd the program and should avoid repetition.
  • There should be sufficient time available in the program to enable follow-up discussion with those already interviewed, or to invite contributions from other identified stakeholders, if required.
  • Staff, students and other stakeholders are provided the opportunity to express their views candidly to the committee through the written submission process and will be invited to interview at the discretion of the Review Committee.

To support the review committee, it is recommended that:

  • The executive dean and the head of school provide a shortlist of staff members and external stakeholders recommended for interview.
  • The secretariat meets with the internal members of the review committee to finalise stakeholders to be invited to interview.
  • The secretariat seeks comment on the review timetable from the President of the Academic Board to ensure there is sufficient time provided to committee members to consider the input to the review.

A sample timetable has been provided in Appendix 3.1

2.1.5    Reviews conducted online

If the review is held online, or if a significant number of interviewees are not available to participate in interviews on campus, the secretariat will arrange for meetings to be held on a video conferencing tool (for example, Zoom or Microsoft Teams). Depending on preference, the review committee members on campus could meet in a meeting room on campus, or participate remotely.

Adjustments can be made to the review timetable to make the process more comfortable and sustainable for the review committee members when the review is held online, including:

  • Considering the time-zones of the review committee members and scheduling meetings during common business hours.
  • Scheduling the review over more than four days, without increasing the total hours attributed to a four-day review.
  • Scheduling longer interviews to allow for delays that might occur during online meetings.
  • Scheduling adequate breaks during each day to allow members time to step away from meetings.
  • Requesting more submissions or written comments instead of interviews, where appropriate.
  • Requesting filmed comments from relevant stakeholders which can be viewed before the review commences, where appropriate.
  • Requesting the school organise for the filming of a virtual walk-through of facilities, to introduce committee members to the site in advance.
  • Coordinating key areas of focus in advance to ensure interviews are targeted.

2.2     Conduct of the review

2.2.1    Review committee deliberations

The review committee considers the submission prepared by the school, together with other submissions made by interested persons and organisations, and consults with University staff, students and other persons as deemed appropriate, through interviews. Sample questions that the review committee might consider is available on the Academic Board’s ‘Reviews’ website.

Following perusal of the school submission and interviews with the Senior Executive officers, the committee determines whether there are additional questions to be asked that are relevant to the review, so that the terms of reference are addressed. The committee identifies those areas where more information is required and with support from the secretary, determine how best to obtain that information (e.g. interviews, visits, records, direct requests to the school).

2.2.2    Initial meetings with senior executives and senior staff

The review committee initially meets with the following staff or their representatives, as relevant to the review:

  • President of the Academic Board;
  • Vice-Chancellor;
  • Executive Dean;
  • Head of School;
  • Faculty Executive Manager (if the Faculty Executive Manager is not the review secretary);
  • Provost;
  • Deputy Vice-Chancellors;
  • Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Engagement);
  • Dean of the Graduate School; and
  • Associate Deans.

2.2.3   Interviews with internal stakeholders

The review committee meets and interviews relevant internal stakeholders based on written submissions received or those identified by the review committee, including (but not limited to):

  • Academic and professional staff of the school;
  • Undergraduate and postgraduate students of the school, as relevant;
  • Heads of units or representatives who frequently collaborate with the school;
  • Other staff or student representatives as relevant, and as determined by the Chair in consultation with members of the review committee.

If a perceived or real conflict of interest exists with the secretary or member of the review committee, a confidential discussion with the President of the Academic Board may be requested via the Office of the President of the Academic Board, who will consult with the Chair or other members of the review committee as relevant.

Internal stakeholders are able to request an interview with the review committee if required.

2.2.4    Engagement with external stakeholders

The review committee engages with relevant external stakeholders, including (but not limited to):

  • representatives from industry;
  • representatives from government;
  • representatives from professional bodies;
  • representatives from employer groups; or
  • alumni who are relevant to the school’s activities in research, learning, and engagement.

External stakeholders may request an interview with the review committee via the secretary.

A stakeholder dinner, as set out in the Review of Schools Procedures, will be held on the evening of the second or third day of the review.

If the review is held online, the secretariat can include other opportunities for engagement with external stakeholders, such as interviews with the review committee in groups or individually.

Visits to facilities

Brief visits to, and inspection of, school facilities should be included in the program to provide the opportunity to clarify or illustrate points made in the submissions. Where schools are multi-sited, the use of technologies such as video conferencing or filmed tours can be considered.

If the review is held online, alternate approaches to share details about facilities can be adopted, such as for the internal members to visit the facilities and include a report to the full committee, or for an appropriate filmed tour to be organised by the school in advance of the review. This can be determined by the School and secretary in planning for the review, and decided in advance where possible to allow time for filming and video editing if required.

2.2.6    Presentation of the findings

Prior to the finalisation of the recommendations on the final day of the review, the review committee meets with:

  • the Executive Dean (and the Faculty Executive Manager, if the Faculty Executive Faculty Manager is not the review secretary) – to review the draft recommendations and advise the review committee on priorities, feasibility considerations, sensitivities, and other considerations that may be relevant to the crafting of the recommendations;
  • the Head of School and the School Manager – to learn of and respond to the recommendations before they are made public; the Head of School may also be advised to communicate with individual staff who might be significantly affected by individual recommendations; and
  • the President of the Academic Board and the Provost – to discuss the recommendations.

On the final day of the review, the review committee provides a general overview of the findings from the review and an outline of the recommendations to a full meeting of the school. All review committee members should attend the school presentation.

At the same time, the ABSC representative should inform the school about:

  • the time-frame for completion of the report;
  • the opportunity for the school's consideration of and response to the recommendations;
  • the deliberative process in the ABSC consideration of the report;
  • the passage of the report through the Academic Board to the Vice-Chancellor; and
  • the implementation and follow-up process.

If the review is held online, or if a number of staff in the school are not available to attend on-campus, the presentation can be held online.

2.2.7    Structure of the review report

The review report is prepared by the members of the review committee with support from the Secretary. The Chair should discuss with members the division of responsibility for drafting individual sections of the report.

It is anticipated that the review committee develops commendations and recommendations progressively throughout the review. It is expected that a penultimate draft of the report be completed prior to the departure of the external review committee members from the University.

The report consists of the following sections:

  • Membership of the Review Committee
  • Terms of Reference
  • Procedures
  • Summary of Commendations and Recommendations
  • Report of the Review Committee
  • Appendices.

Commendations:

  • Commendations should be made in those areas where the school has achieved outstanding outcomes, or has made significant progress towards doing so. Due recognition should be given to what the school is doing well and should continue to do.

Recommendations:

  • Schools are best able to benefit from and respond to concise recommendations under the themes of the terms of reference. Approximately ten recommendations will often be suitable, although this can vary depending on the review committee and circumstances of the school.
  • In formulating its recommendations, the review committee should take account of the resources available to the University and its collective goals and objectives, as expressed in its Strategic Plan and as advised by the President of the Academic Board and members of the Senior Executive.
  • Every effort should be made to ensure that statements in the report are factually correct.
  • Recommendations should not be directed toward senior officers of the University or to the University itself. They must be directed towards the Head of School so that it is clear how the school should proceed.
  • All recommendations, particularly those proposing significant change or changes that impact on other organisational units or University policies, should be justified, substantiated by the evidence in submissions and from interviews, well-argued, and able to stand up to close scrutiny.

Review committees are encouraged to include time-frames for implementation of recommendations.

Report of the Review Committee:

There is no mandatory format for the Report of the Review Committee section. One option is to structure the report around the major themes on which the review committee wishes to make recommendations, or to group commendations and recommendations under the terms of reference as headings.

The report should not quote or identify any individuals who made a submission to the review or were interviewed.

A suggested review report template is available in Review of Schools Report Template [PPL 1.40.06d1].

Appendices:

Appendix 1 to the review report must contain a list of names of all individuals who made written submissions to the review committee and all those interviewed by the review committee.

Student submissions are confidential by default, unless a student requests to be identified. The appendix should list the number of student submissions without naming students who did not request to be identified.

Students interviewed in the course of the review are listed in the appendix unless they request anonymity.

Other appendices are to follow, if required. Written submissions are not included in the report.

2.3    Post-review

Following the conclusion of the review, the review report with recommendations is finalised by the Chair in consultation with the Secretary and other members of the review committee.

 

The response to the review report and implementation process is outlined in Section 3.8 and Section 3.9 of the Review of School Procedures.

3.0    Appendix

3.1    Sample Timetable

Evening preceding review

  • dinner for all members of the review committee, the secretary, and the Executive Dean, to discuss review issues and orient external members to University procedures and protocols

Day 1 - morning

  • welcome by the President of the Academic Board (15 minutes)
  • interview with the Vice-Chancellor (30 minutes)
  • interview with the Executive Dean (30 minutes)
  • interview with the Head of School (60 minutes)

Day 1 - afternoon

  • interview with the relevant Faculty Executive Manager (if the Faculty Executive Manager is not the review secretary) (30 minutes)
  • interviews with academic, general and research staff, representatives of professional and other external bodies, and undergraduate and postgraduate students

Day 2 - morning

  • interview with the Provost (30 minutes)
  • interviews with Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Engagement), Dean of Graduate School (or representatives) (15 minutes each)
  • interviews with other University staff

Day 2 - afternoon

  • visit to school, inspection of school facilities, informal gathering to meet all school staff

Day 2 - evening

  • if required, a stakeholder dinner for all review committee members, Executive Dean, and representatives of industry, government, professional bodies and employer groups

Day 3

  • interviews
  • report writing to commence

Day 4 - morning

  • report writing, outstanding/unscheduled interviews
  • meeting with Executive Dean (and the Faculty Executive Manager, if the Faculty Executive Manager is not the review secretary) to discuss draft recommendations
  • meeting with Head of School to discuss draft recommendations

Day 4 - afternoon

  • meeting with President of the Academic Board and Provost to discuss draft recommendations
  • preparation for presentation to school
  • presentation of draft recommendations to all school staff at the school – all review committee members to be in attendance (60 minutes)
  • finalisation of report in penultimate draft form

The Executive Dean and Head of School should aim to have some availability during the review in case the review committee requests to schedule further meetings to discuss specific issues.

A sample timetable is also available for download on the Academic Board’s ‘Reviews’ website.


Custodians
Academic Registrar

Forms

Printer-friendly version

Review of Schools and Academic Disciplines Report Template - Form

Review of Schools and Academic Disciplines Report Template - Form

Printer-friendly version
Body
Description: 

This Report Template is to be used by School and Academic Discipline Review Committees.

 

 

Custodians
Academic Registrar
Custodians
Academic Registrar
Custodians
Academic Registrar