The Review of Schools Procedure was recently updated. The accompanying Guidelines [1.40.06c]  are currently under review to align to the Procedure, for details contact Academic Policy and Programs (app@uq.edu.au).

Procedures

Review of Schools - Procedures

Printer-friendly version
Body

1.0    Purpose and Scope

The Supervisory Organisational Strucuture 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 reviews of schools 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, any modifications to the standard terms of reference and duration of the review are proposed by the Head of School and Executive Dean. ABSC considers and nominates members (including reserve members) and a Chair to the review committee, and proposes the terms of reference and duration of the review. ABSC will advise USET where changes have been made to membership composition and terms of reference proposed by the school. USET approves the nominees, terms of reference and duration. The Provost, following consultation with the President of 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.

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.

3.2.2    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 in PPL 1.40.06c 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 PPL 1.40.06c 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.

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.

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.

3.4.4    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. If an individual has any concerns with, or suggestions regarding, an aspect of the review process, they should discuss the matter directly with the President of the Academic Board or the Chair of the review committee.

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 PPL 1.40.06c Review of Schools – Guidelines, and a review report template is in PPL 1.40.06d1 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;

  • 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 guidance on University policies, procedures and protocols;

  • Supports the Chair in creating an environment that is conducive to free and open discussion without prejudice to any staff member;

  • At the presentation of the recommendations to the school, informs the school about the process following the review;

  • 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 and provides guidance on University policies, procedures and protocols, as applicable to the discipline context;

  • 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 is a senior member of professional staff who 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 relevant policy and procedural advice;

  • 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:

  • Discusses with the Provost and the Executive Dean, the appointment of the Review Committee Secretary;

  • Advises the Provost on requests to amendment membership, Terms of Reference, and 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; 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;

  • 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; and

  • Oversees the implementation and follow up on review recommendations.

4.12    Academic Board Standing Committee

The Academic Board Standing Committee:

  • Oversees School reviews on behalf of Academic Board;
  • In consultation with the Executive Dean, make recommendations to USET on the schedule of reviews;
  • Consider and nominate the membership of review committees (including ABSC representative), 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 and Academic Disciplines - Guidelines

Printer-friendly version
Body

1. Purpose and Objectives

These guidelines enact PPL 1.40.05a Organisational Unit Reviews – Policy and PPL 1.40.06b Review of Schools and Academic Disciplines – Procedures.

2. Definitions, Terms, Acronyms

No entries for this document.

3. Guidelines Scope/Coverage

These guidelines apply to reviews of schools and academic disciplines at The University of Queensland.

4. Guidelines Statement

The following guidelines are provided to review committees to assist in the preparation for, and conduct of, the review:

Section 5.2 (Timeline) provides guidance to schools and review committees on the general timeline of events for the pre-review, review, and post-review phases of the review process.

5. Guidelines

5.1 Review timetable – proposed broad model

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)
  • interviews with the Vice-Chancellor and Provost (30 minutes each)
  • interview with the Executive Dean (30 minutes)
  • interview with the Head of School (60 minutes)

Day 1 - afternoon

  • interviews with academic, general and research staff, representatives of professional and other external bodies, and undergraduate and postgraduate students

Day 2 - morning

  • interviews with DVCs, PVCs, Dean of Graduate School (20 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

  • 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 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 over lunch 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 should be available during the review in case the review committee requests to schedule further meetings to discuss specific issues.

5.2 Timeline

12 months prior to School Review

 

School notified of date of review

 

Workshop for Heads of School and key administrative staff conducted by President of Academic Board

 

Academic Board Standing Committee representative on review committee briefs schools’ staff on review process

 

Two-day Retreat held to discuss the school's Operational Plan and key review issues/priorities (to include address by President of Academic Board)

 

Detailed minutes from the Retreat used as ongoing reference during preparations

 

Determine benchmark universities and contact them for data

 

Check CEQ, AUSSE and SET-C data will be available

10 - 11 months prior to School Review

 

Check that preparation process is progressing as planned (e.g. consultative committees are meeting)

 

Head of School to commence meeting with school and outside groups/stakeholders who are likely to be interviewed to discuss relevant issues (e.g. HDR students; Level A staff…)

9 months prior to School Review

 

Explore in depth key issues for growth or change

 

Meet with other relevant schools to discuss their submission to the School’s Review

7 months prior to School Review

 

Head of School prepares review document template and nominates relevant staff to coordinate/write sections of the document

 

Collection of data for relevant section-coordinator undertaken by administrative staff

 

Section-coordinators meet with committees/groups to allocate writing of subsections where required

 

Academic staff to focus research discussions on past strengths and future directions

 

Data from academic staff (e.g. awards, editorial boards) provided to review document section–coordinators

6 – 2 months prior to School Review

 

Intensive writing period of the review documents sections

 

Collating of draft sections by section heads

 

Draft sections sent to external editor

 

Overwriting of draft sections by Head of School

 

Commence final publishing layout of review document

 

Head of School to commence final writing and editing of review document

 

Drafts of particular sections sent to Executive Dean for feedback, as required

Week prior to School Review

 

Head of School to meet with potential interview groups to explain review process and purpose of their meeting with review committee

 

Plan review committee’s visit to school and tour of facilities

 

Arrange catering for review committee’s visit to school

 

Head of School to meet with senior staff to confirm school’s key messages

School Review

 

Schedule feedback meetings for staff interviewees with Head of School and relevant colleagues

 

Head of School and School Manager to keep diaries clear for the four days of the review and be ready to assist as required

Post-Review

 

Review committee to finalise review report within two weeks of the review

 

Copy of report sent to Head of School for preparation of school’s written response (this is expected to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the report.)

 

The review report, the school’s response together with comments from the Executive Dean is forwarded to the next meeting of Academic Board Standing Committee (the Head of School and Executive Dean attend the meeting to discuss the review recommendations)

 

The review report, together with Standing Committee’s comments are submitted to the Academic Board and then submitted to Senate for approval.

 

Once review report is approved by Senate, the report becomes a public document.

 

A 12-month implementation report is submitted by the School to Standing Committee 12 months after approval by Senate

5.3 Sample questions

The following list includes areas which might be explored.

1. Curriculum and teaching

  • How successfully does the school cover the major areas of its discipline/s?
  • To what extent do programs meet expressed demand: by students; and by professions?
  • How do programs compare with those of a similar nature throughout the state and Australia in terms of: undergraduate and postgraduate offerings; quality of students enrolling (e.g. OP/rank entry score); and employment of graduates?
  • What procedures does the school have in place for regular review of its programs?
  • What are the findings of previous curriculum review processes?
  • What developments have occurred in the discipline/s during the past seven years?
  • How have these developments been reflected in the programs/courses offered by the school?
  • How does the school's future planning take into account current community needs?
  • To what extent have the new developments been encouraged/supported by the faculty/University?
  • What demands are made on the school for the offering of compulsory courses for specific disciplines?
  • Is the school able to satisfy these demands in an effective manner and, if not, what factors prevent it from doing so?
  • What is the balance of offerings between courses which are compulsory for one or more disciplines and electives?
  • Does the school have appropriate and adequate liaison with schools for which it provides compulsory courses, and with relevant outside bodies?
  • What demands are made by external authorities responsible for the registration and/or recognition of the professional qualifications awarded by the University?
  • What contribution is made to continuing education, professional or otherwise, and how is it rewarded?
  • What attempt is made to meet the intellectual and cultural needs of society?
  • What innovative teaching methods are employed?
  • How does the school promote and reward excellence in teaching?
  • What arrangements does the school have for regular review of all courses?
  • How does the school use such reviews to improve the quality of its courses and its teaching?
  • What teaching and learning facilities are available to students?
  • Is there a sustained pattern of demand for the programs offered by the school?
  • Is there a sustained pattern of demand or lack of demand for any of the courses offered by the school?
  • Are the enrolment patterns consistent with continued viability of the School?
  • Does the school have, or does it need, a program for effective recruitment of students to its programs?
  • What are the career destinations of the school's graduates?
  • What attempts are being made to increase the proportion of postgraduate students in the school?

2. Research

  • What steps are taken to foster honours and postgraduate education and improve the training of researchers at higher degree and postdoctoral levels?
  • Can the school meet the demand for postgraduate supervision?
  • What are the school's recognised areas of research excellence?
  • What evidence is there of national and international recognition of the school's research?
  • What effort is made to emphasize, promote, and fund excellence in research within the school?
  • Do the school's research interests reflect and complement the major areas of its teaching?
  • Are undergraduate students involved in research activities and is the value of research promoted at undergraduate level?
  • Do the research interests of the school provide a range of opportunities for research by postgraduate students?
  • Does the school evaluate research performance by means of an appropriate set of performance indicators and allocate funds for research competitively and on the basis of performance?
  • How does the school's publication record compare with that of cognate schools and with like schools in other institutions?
  • What is the school's level of success in attracting research funding?
  • What external avenues are available to the school to seek additional research support?
  • What proportion of the school's staff are productive researchers?
  • Are non-researchers given other duties?

3. Industry/professional links and community service

  • How is the school involved in service to the University?
  • To what extent does the school cooperate and collaborate with other tertiary education institutions?
  • What steps does the school take to promote public awareness of its activities and their contribution to the social, cultural, and economic development of society?
  • How extensive is staff involvement in academic, professional and service organisations?
  • What links does the school have with alumni, government at all levels, industry, commerce, the professions, and the community generally?
  • To what extent is the school aware of the needs of industry, commerce and the professions?
  • What links has the school established with industry, commerce and the professions to acquire research support?

4. Internationalisation

  • Does the school have, or does it need, a program for effective recruitment of international students to its programs?
  • What attempts are being made to increase the proportion of international students?
  • Does the school have mechanisms to support its international students?

5. Equity and diversity issues

  • Does the school ensure equality of opportunity?
  • What effort is made to encourage the enrolment and access of students from minority and disadvantaged groups?
  • Is there a need to attempt to disturb traditional gender patterns within the area of study?
  • What attempt is made to increase the proportion of women who continue to honours and postgraduate level?

6. Organisational issues

  • Is there an appropriate (i) supply, and (ii) balance of senior/junior staff, academic/general staff in the school to support the school's teaching, research and administrative functions, currently and for planned growth?
  • Does the full complement of academic staff provide the range of expertise necessary to provide effective undergraduate and postgraduate education in the range of courses offered and, in particular, in those courses that are compulsory for some disciplines?
  • Does the school have effective administrative and technical support?
  • Does the school have difficulty recruiting staff and, if so, to what does this appear to be due?
  • Does the school have staff development and training policies in place and working?
  • Are there arrangements for the regular review and appraisal of staff?
  • Are there reward schemes to establish a close relationship between performance, salaries, and other conditions of work?
  • How flexible are salary arrangements and conditions of service within the school?
  • Does the school have a workload document, and actively manage the workload of its staff?
  • What is the role of professors within the school?
  • How does the school create an organisational climate that ensures that academic, professional, technical and administrative staff work together effectively?
  • What is the nature of the school's decision-making processes?
  • How are funds allocated within the school?
  • How effective is communication within the school?
  • How effectively does the school conduct its strategic planning, including regular reviews of its aims and achievements?
  • Does the school set targets and monitor performance?
  • Has the school developed a sound research infrastructure?
  • Are equipment, accommodation and other research facilities adequate?
  • How successful is the school in securing the share of internal funding that it believes necessary or appropriate?
  • How does the school's budget compare with the budgets of other schools in the faculty in relation to size and function?
  • How efficient is the school in using its resources to ensure the fulfilment of its mission?
  • How does the school allocate its funds in relation to programs/courses offered?
  • Does the school review its elective offerings in terms of enrolment and relative costs?
  • What does the school do to attract external support from industry, professions, corporations, and the University's alumni?
  • What attempts, if any, are being made to increase income from full-fee-paying students and continuing professional education?
  • Are the resources to the school adequate to meet its commitments to high quality teaching and research and to allow it to compete for research performance related funds?
  • Does the school encourage entrepreneurial activity?
  • Does the school maximise returns from innovative research and technology transfer?
  • Is the accommodation provided to the school appropriate and adequate for: effective undergraduate and postgraduate teaching; and the research projects of staff and students?
  • Is the accommodation sufficient for: current activities; and planned or anticipated growth?
  • Are teaching and research facilities (e.g., equipment) up to date and in sufficient supply to ensure efficient and effective programs?
  • Does the school have sufficient appropriately qualified technical and administrative staff to support both teaching and research endeavours?
  • Does the administration and organisation of the school allow for the most effective use of the school's teaching and research facilities?

7. Advisory Boards

  • If the school has an advisory board, is it functioning well?
  • If not, how can it be improved (e.g. revised composition/membership, change terms of reference, increase frequency of meetings)?
  • If the school does not have an advisory board, would the school benefit from establishing one?
  • If so, what would the main functions of the advisory board be (e.g. to increase industry engagement, strengthen links with the scientific community, ensure input from employer groups, improve the school's governance structure)?
  • Would the school be able to secure a membership that would ensure the satisfactory functioning of the advisory board, and therefore, be able to meet its objectives?

8. Relationship with Centres and Units

School Centres

  • What centres have been established within the school?
  • What are their goals and objectives?
  • Is/are the centre(s) meeting its/their approved goals and objectives?
  • What proportion of staff and students are directly involved with the centre(s)?
  • What is the financial relationship between the centre(s) and the school?
  • What are the reporting arrangements for the centre(s)?
  • How is/are the centre(s) contributing to the teaching, research and/or service profiles of the school?
  • Are the goals of the centre(s) appropriate for the discipline in the future?
  • Are the goals of the centre(s) appropriate for the school in the future?
  • Should the centre(s) continue?  For what duration?
  • What changes should be made to its/their objectives and operations?

Other Centres (i.e. Faculty Centres, University Centres) and Institutes

  • What is the school’s involvement in other centres and institutes within the University?
  • What proportion of staff and students of the school are directly involved with the centre(s)/institute(s)?
  • How is the school’s involvement with the centre(s) contributing to the school’s teaching, research and/or community service profiles?
  • Should the school make changes in its relationship with the centre(s)?

9. Role of the School

  • Has the school outlined appropriate goals for the future?
  • Is the school able to project a corporate identity or sense of unity?
  • Is the school clear about its priorities and the relative importance of its different activities in achieving its stated objectives?
  • Has the school established realistic targets for student recruitment to its courses and the output of graduates and postgraduates?
  • Has the school established appropriate directions and targets for its research and research output?
  • What is the national and international standing of the school in relation to similar schools within the Queensland and nationally?
  • Should the school continue in its present form; should any changes be made to its present structure?
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