Skip to content

Quality Handbook Section 10B - Academic Partnerships: Review

This page outlines how NTU approves, manages and monitors academic partnerships and collaborative provision, including partner approval, risk assessment, admissions, quality assurance, operational responsibilities, external examining and the ongoing review of collaborative courses and partnerships.

Latest version as of September 2026.

1. Monitoring and Review of Academic Partnerships

Collaborative partnerships are subject to the University’s standard quality assurance processes, including annual and periodic course review, ensuring alignment with institutional requirements for academic standards and student experience. In addition, Periodic Collaborative Review provides a partnership-level evaluation of the effectiveness, strategic value, and ongoing suitability of the collaboration.

1.1 This section contains specific requirements for:

  • Validation Service
  • Franchise
  • Dual Degree
  • Joint/Double degree
  • Joint delivery partnerships
  • Distance delivery partnerships
  • Articulation arrangements
  • Joint/dual/double PhD collaborations

1.2 Progression and articulation arrangements are monitored and reviewed as part of routine course management processes, as set out in QH Section 6.

1.3 For information on the monitoring and review of international progression and articulation agreements, please visit NTU Global’s SharePoint site for progression and articulation arrangements.

1.4 This section contains requirements for:

  • Monitoring and reporting
  • External examiners
  • Academic appeals and irregularities
  • Changes to collaborative provision
  • Withdrawal and teach-out
  • Periodic collaborative review
  • Withdrawal and teach-out

1.5 The following requirements apply to all types of partnership within the scope of this section:

Course review and annual monitoring (non-doctoral provision only)

1.6 Collaborative provision is subject to ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that the course(s) operates satisfactorily between periodic collaborative reviews, that academic standards and quality are maintained and that enhancements are made as appropriate. Partnership arrangements must be explicitly considered in all annual and periodic reviews.

1.7 Annual monitoring may result in required actions to address any concerns identified about the standards and quality.

External examiners

1.8 External examiners are appointed for all award-bearing collaborative provision.  The University is responsible for the appointment, induction and payment of external examiners. Where an existing course is delivered both at NTU and offsite/by a partner, the same external examiner should be appointed to ensure comparability of standards. Where this is the case, the external examiner is expected to make explicit reference to offsite/collaborative provision in their report.

1.9 Further details can be found in QH Section 9.

Making changes to provision (non-doctoral provision only)

1.10 The mechanisms for approval of changes to courses are the same as if the course was delivered solely at NTU (QH Section 5). The exception is that for international provision, the School must consult their NTU Global Associate Director and complete the NTU Global Change Form for business approval prior to academic approval. More information can be found on the NTU Global SharePoint site.

Withdrawal and teach-out (non-doctoral provision only)

1.11 When a collaboration or partnership is being withdrawn from, or terminated, appropriate teach-out processes are put into place to ensure that the interests of the students are protected.

1.12 Conditions for withdrawal from a collaboration or partnership (by either partner) and the negotiated exit strategy, are set out in the Legal Agreement between NTU and the partner. This includes where courses are no longer meeting the University’s requirements for the quality and standards of its awards.

1.13 Further information on the withdrawal and teach out process can be found below.

2. Specific requirements for each type of partnership

2.1 Specific requirements for each type of partnership are as follows:

Course review and annual monitoring:

All courses must complete annual monitoring. Templates are available on the Academic Quality Hub, however alternative format can be considered where a partner has its own monitoring processes. AcaPSC are responsible for the consideration of annual monitoring for Validation Service provision. Additional guidance for Validated Provision is available here.

External examiners:

The Validated Centre is responsible for nominating external examiners, arranging travel and visas (where relevant) and for the payment of expenses.

Academic appeals and irregularities:

Appeals, irregularities and complaints will be undertaken by the partner in the first instance using either the partners own approved processes or the NTU processes as specified in QH Sections 17B, 17C and 17E.

Students have the right to appeal to the University only when the process undertaken by the partner has been completed and where they believe that the partner has materially failed to follow or correctly apply its own procedures. In such cases, the University will investigate the accuracy with which the partner has followed its procedures, to establish whether there has been any material error or failing in the application of the procedures and if so, whether the outcome to the student may have been adversely affected. Should this appeal be upheld, the University may request that the partner discards the original outcome and revisits the matter or reconsiders the procedure afresh to ensure that the procedure is correctly applied. Students have the right of appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator following completion of any University process.

Changes to provision:

For Validation Service provision, AcaPSC will take the role of SASQC.

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6. Minimum requirements include but are not limited to a Course Review Plan for courses (template available in QHS6B). The School must decide whether a separate Course Review Plan is completed for the franchise course or if one plan is used to cover both courses.

External examiners:

Where possible the same external examiner should be appointed for the course at NTU and the partner institution.

Academic appeals and irregularities:

Appeals, irregularities and complaints will be undertaken by the partner in the first instance using either the partners own approved processes or the NTU processes as specified in QH Sections 17B, 17C and 17E..

Students have the right to appeal to the University only when the process undertaken by the partner has been completed and where they believe that the partner has materially failed to follow or correctly apply its own procedures. In such cases, the University will investigate the accuracy with which the partner has followed its procedures, to establish whether there has been any material error or failing in the application of the procedures and if so, whether the outcome to the student may have been adversely affected. Should this appeal be upheld, the University may request that the partner discards the original outcome and revisits the matter or reconsiders the procedure afresh to ensure that the procedure is correctly applied. Students have the right of appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator following completion of any University process.

Changes to provision:

N/A

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6. Minimum requirements include but are not limited to a Course Review Plan for courses (template available in QHS6B).

External examiners:

May have a jointly appointed external examiner

Academic appeals and irregularities:

The procedures of the institution at which the student is studying at the time will apply.

Changes to provision:

N/A

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6. Minimum requirements include but are not limited to a Course Review Plan for courses (template available in QHS6B).

External examiners:

May have a jointly appointed external examiner

Academic appeals and irregularities:

The procedures that will apply will be determined at approval and recorded in the Collaborative Operational Document. In most cases the procedures of the institution at which the student is studying at the time will apply

Changes to provision:

N/A

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6. Minimum requirements include but are not limited to a Course Review Plan for courses (template available in QHS6B).

External examiners:

May have a jointly appointed external examiner

Academic appeals and irregularities:

The process undertaken will depend upon the level of responsibility that is delegated to the partner as set out in the approved Collaborative Operational Document.

Changes to provision:

N/A

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6. The approval period for distance delivery arrangements should be aligned to the PCR schedule. The re-approval term for the distance delivery arrangement should align with the course re-approval period.

Changes to provision:

N/A

Course review and annual monitoring:

Standard Course Review Policy requirements must be followed course monitoring, review and reporting processes as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 6.

External examiners:

External Examiner(s) must be provided with details of any articulation arrangements relating to the course for which they are appointed.

Changes to provision:

Both partners must inform the other of changes to courses which form part of the agreement and the NTU Course Committee must review the mapping, with notification to SASQC, to ensure that the two courses continue to articulate.

Monitoring and review:

Doctoral awards are monitored and review in line with requirements set out in Quality Handbook Section 11. Individual doctoral candidate progress is monitored in line with the milestones agreed in the Collaborative Operational Document and the individual doctoral candidate cotutelle. Each collaboration is reported on annually to the University Research and Innovation Committee (URIC).

External Examiners:

External examiners for research degree collaborations are considered and approved by the School Research Degrees Committee and are subject to the same criteria as specified in QH Section 11.

Academic appeals, irregularities, extenuating circumstances and complaints

These are managed using either:

  • jointly by both partners using a set of pre-agreed processes;
  • separately by the institution at which the doctoral candidate is studying at the time.

Arrangements will be specified in the Collaborative Operational Document.

Changes to provision:

An NTU doctoral candidate may transfer from a single University awarded doctorate to a joint, double or dual doctoral arrangement as specified in the collaborative operational document. Transfers to a joint, double or dual doctoral award are approved by the URIC.

3. Periodic Collaborative Review

3.1 Collaborative provision is reviewed by the University every three to five years (five years for doctoral awards). The University reserves the right to bring a review date forward if there are significant concerns about the standards and quality of provision at a collaborative partner.

3.2 The following requirements apply to non-doctoral awards only. Research degrees that are delivered as part of a School-based collaborative partnership are subject to the University’s research degrees monitoring and reporting processes as set out in QH Section 11.

3.3 Collaborative provision is subject to the same processes as standard University courses and sits within the wider quality framework:

  1. Periodic Review will test the efficacy of the School’s processes for the management of collaborative provision (QH7);
  2. Periodic collaborative review will consider the strategy and context for the partnership, the suitability of the partner, and the efficacy of arrangements for the operation of the collaboration. It aims to:
  • satisfy the University that the arrangement continues to fulfil the requirements for quality, that the academic standards of the awards are appropriate and that there are comparable student learning opportunities to those students studying at the University.
  • Consider themes from course reviews where there are multiple courses with one partner;
  • Ensure that the relationship is managed effectively.

3.4 It is both developmental and judgemental.

3.5 It may also be used to:

  1. reflect on whether the anticipated benefits are being realised
  2. Reflect on the strategic ambitions for the partnership and provide a forum for discussing future developments;

Business evaluation

The business case for the partnership must be approved before the operation of the collaboration (academic approval) begins.

  • International partnerships: Business evaluation is the responsibility of EQP. Guidance and templates are available from the NTU Global SharePoint site.
  • UK partnerships: Business evaluation is the responsibility of EQP. Guidance and templates are available from CADQPartnerEnquiries@ntu.ac.uk

Business evaluation must include:

  • Due diligence: A proportionate level of due diligence must be carried out to ensure the continued suitability of the partner as a partner of NTU.
  • Risk assessment: All partnerships are required to have an up-to-date risk assessment in place. This must be reviewed and updated as part of review through discussions between the School and EQP.

The review process is divided between the reapproval of the partner (where relevant); and the approval of the operation of the collaboration.

A partner reapproval event will not be required in the following circumstances, where due diligence criteria are otherwise satisfied. In these circumstances, approval will focus on the arrangements for the operation of the collaboration.

  1. The organisation falls within the remit of an external quality assurance agency for higher education that is on the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) and no concerns have been raised in the most recent review.
  2. The organisation falls within the remit of an external quality assurance agency for higher education that is internationally recognised, (for example, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency or the ANVUR, Italy) and no concerns have been raised during the most recent review.
  3. The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with the OfS and where there are no concerns about ongoing registration.
  4. The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with Ofsted, where the latest Ofsted report raised no concerns and the organisation has three or more years’ experience in delivering higher education, supported by satisfactory references.

A paper-based exercise is likely to suffice in the following circumstances:

  1. The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with Ofsted and where the latest Ofsted report raised no concerns. The organisation’s ability to deliver Higher Education must still be tested where the organisation has less than three years’ experience delivering higher education, or we have not been able to obtain satisfactory references.
  2. The organisation is an experienced training provider delivering professional qualifications for registered professions, for example, nursing and no concerns have been raised by the regulatory body. The organisation’s ability to deliver Higher Education must still be tested where the organisation has less than three years’ experience delivering higher education, or we have not been able to obtain satisfactory references.

In all other cases, an in-person review event will be required. Where the event is in-person, there must be representation from all partners involved.

Periodic Collaborative Reviews must include:

Student feedback

  • Student survey: students will be asked questions on their experience of the course. And/or:
  • Meeting with students: a student meeting may be hosted by EQP and a member of AcaPSC

Submission of supporting information

  • Supporting information must be provided by both NTU and the partner to demonstrate how ongoing approval criteria are met.
  • For guidance, please see Approval and Review Guidance. Guidance will also be given by EQP.

Desk-based review of evidence

  • If significant concerns are identified as a result of the desk-based review of evidence, the form of review may change.

Review meeting(s)

The review meeting may take the form of:

  • A sub-group of SASQC with a representative from EQP and a non-School member and no representation from the partner;
  • A review-group comprised of one School representative and a range of non-School members, with representation from the partner.

The format will be determined on a case-by-case basis and approved by AcaPSC at the start of the academic year in which the partnership is due to be reviewed. For more information, please see ‘Approval and Review Guidance’. If the partnership involves an apprenticeship, a member of the apprenticeship team must be involved.

Outcomes

The review process makes the following findings about institutional approval and the operation of the collaboration:

  1. whether criteria for ongoing approval are met;
  2. the period for which further approval is given (between one and five years, based on risk indicated by the business evaluation, academic risk assessment and the findings of the review event);
  3. required actions: set to resolve identified areas of risk or uncertainty and must be satisfactorily addressed. The review group will determine the deadline by which required actions must be met, or may instead set a deadline for the production of an action plan to address the required actions;
  4. recommendations: made where the review process has identified potential enhancements.
  5. Commendations: excellent, shareable and repeatable practice
  6. Affirmations: these recognise actions taken or being taken to address issues identified outside of the review process.

  • Re-approval of the partnership must be given before a new contract is signed.
  • The School and/or EQP  work with Legal Services to update the contract and secure signature from both parties.

4. Ongoing approval criteria

The following review criteria must be met in order for a partner(ship) to be reapproved.

4.1 Not all criteria are relevant for all partnerships. Collaborations with another degree awarding body (for example, dual and joint degrees) are assessed against fewer criteria. Where reapproval of the partner is required, criteria a-d below apply regardless of the category of partnership.

Reapproval of the partner (if required)

4.2 The partner continues to have an appropriate educational infrastructure:

  1. The partner has an appropriate forum for planning, target setting and devising implementation strategies to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. This includes the learning environment and the provision of adequate learning resources, for the delivery of courses.
  2. The partner effectively supports the success of all students and minimises gaps in attainment between groups of students with common characteristics (see explanatory notes).

4.3 The partner continues to have an appropriate organisational infrastructure:

  1. Executive, administrative and academic responsibilities for the delivery of the courses are assigned to individuals and groups and are clearly defined and understood.
  2. There is an appropriate forum and, where relevant, appropriate processes in place to support the quality management and enhancement of the course or courses.

The operation of the collaboration

4.4 The partner continues to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.

4.5 Staff have engaged in appropriate professional development and this has been supported in line with arrangements set out in the COD.

4.6 Appropriate resources and support have been provided by the School and/or the partner and both parties have met their responsibilities for the provision of resources set out in the COD.

4.7 Students are well supported academically and pastorally, including with English language where applicable and responsibilities for student support set out in the COD have been met.

4.8 Students are engaged effectively in their learning and in the quality management and enhancement of their course(s). Student engagement helps to ensure a high quality academic experience and that students succeed in and beyond higher education.

4.9 Student achievement and graduate outcomes data have been analysed and the results used to inform course development.

4.10 Where a centre is applying its own regulations to an NTU course: academic regulations continue to be appropriate in the context of any regulatory changes and have been applied consistently to ensure that relevant awards are credible.

4.11 Where appeals and complaints are managed by the partner: appeals and complaints have been managed as agreed in the COD and in line with any relevant regulations.

4.12 Monitoring and reporting arrangements have been effectively applied.

4.13 Governance arrangements are effective in maintaining oversight of the provision.

4.14 The role of the collaborative academic lead is working effectively and in line with the COD. The CAL has been supported by their School to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.

4.15 Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are effective and materials continue to adhere to CMA requirements.

4.16 Policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students are being adhered to and are effective.

The operation of the collaboration

  1. The partner continues to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
  2. Staff have engaged in appropriate professional development and this has been supported in line with arrangements set out in the COD.
  3. Appropriate resources and support have been provided by the School and/or the partner and both parties have met their responsibilities for the provision of resources set out in the COD.
  4. Students are well supported academically and pastorally, including with English language where applicable and responsibilities for student support set out in the COD have been met.
  5. Students are engaged effectively in their learning and in the quality management and enhancement of their course(s). Student engagement helps to ensure a high quality academic experience and that students succeed in and beyond higher education.
  6. Student achievement and graduate outcomes data have been analysed and the results used to inform course development.
  7. Where a centre is applying its own regulations to an NTU course: academic regulations continue to be appropriate in the context of any regulatory changes and have been applied consistently to ensure that relevant awards are credible.
  8. Where appeals and complaints are managed by the partner: appeals and complaints have been managed as agreed in the COD and in line with any relevant regulations.
  9. Monitoring and reporting arrangements have been effectively applied.
  10. Governance arrangements are effective in maintaining oversight of the provision.
  11. The role of the collaborative academic lead is working effectively and in line with the COD. The CAL has been supported by their School to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
  12. Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are effective and materials continue to adhere to CMA requirements.
  13. Policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students are being adhered to and are effective.

The operation of the collaboration

  1. The partner continues to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
  2. Appropriate resources and support have been provided by the School and/or the partner and both parties have met their responsibilities for the provision of resources set out in the COD.
  3. Students are well supported academically and pastorally, including with English language where applicable and responsibilities for student support set out in the COD have been met.
  4. Students are engaged effectively in their learning and in the quality management and enhancement of their course(s). Student engagement helps to ensure a high quality academic experience and that students succeed in and beyond higher education.
  5. Student achievement and graduate outcomes data have been analysed and the results used to inform course development.
  6. Monitoring and reporting arrangements have been effectively applied.
  7. Governance arrangements are effective in maintaining oversight of the provision.
  8. The role of the collaborative academic lead is working effectively and in line with the COD. The CAL has been supported by their School to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
  9. Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are effective and materials continue to adhere to CMA requirements (where relevant).
  10. Policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students are being adhered to and are effective.

The operation of the collaboration

  1. The partner continues to have appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
  2. Appropriate resources and support have been provided by the School and/or the partner and both parties have met their responsibilities for the provision of resources set out in the COD.
  3. Students are well supported academically and pastorally, including with English language where applicable and responsibilities for student support set out in the COD have been met.
  4. Students are engaged effectively in their learning and in the quality management and enhancement of their course(s). Student engagement helps to ensure a high quality academic experience and that students succeed in and beyond higher education.
  5. Student achievement and graduate outcomes data have been analysed and the results used to inform course development.
  6. Academic regulations continue to be appropriate in the context of any regulatory changes and have been applied consistently to ensure that relevant awards are credible.
  7. Appeals and complaints have been managed as agreed in the COD and in line with any relevant regulations.
  8. Monitoring and reporting arrangements have been effectively applied.
  9. Governance arrangements are effective in maintaining oversight of the provision.
  10. The role of the collaborative academic lead is working effectively and in line with the COD. The CAL has been supported by their School to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
  11. Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are effective and materials continue to adhere to CMA requirements.
  12. Policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students are being adhered to and are effective.

5. Appeal of Approval/Review Decisions

An appeal of a decision relating to collaborative approval or review must be presented by the collaborative partner or School to the Chair of ASQC or URC within 14 days of receipt of the confirmed approval or review report or minute of the meeting where the approval or review was undertaken.

5.1 If a matter of dispute is not resolved by ASQC or URC, the partner or School may make a direct submission to the University’s Academic Board through the Vice-Chancellor. Academic Board will consider the matter itself or by means of a working party, which would not include any member of staff involved in the earlier decision.

5.2 Once representation is received from both parties, a decision will be made to either:

  1. confirm the decision of the Partnership Development and Approval / Review Group / URIC;
  2. refer the case back to the Partnership Development and Approval / Review Group / URIC with instructions to consider the proposals de novo;
  3. rescind the decision and make recommendations for action towards further progress;
  4. make such other arrangements for the determination of the issues as it deems appropriate.

5.3 The decision of the appeal body is final.

6. Withdrawal and teach-out process

6.1 The process below applies to Validation Service, Franchise, Joint Delivery, Dual Degree and Joint/Double degree partnerships.

6.2 The withdrawal and teach-out process can be initiated by either party in line with the contract. Where the partner initiates teach-out, the process, NTU must ensure that all of the information in stage 2 is provided by the partner.

6.3 Distance delivery partnerships, articulation agreements, progression agreements, placements, and higher education apprenticeships are subject to the university’s standard withdrawal and teach-out processes as defined in QHS 5G.

Stage One: Business approval (where NTU wishes to trigger teach-out)

  1. The proposal to withdraw from a collaborative arrangement is discussed and signed off by the relevant School Executive(s), and University Internationalisation Committee (international collaborations only), UK Collaborations Business Evaluation Group (UK collaborations only) or University Research and Innovation Committee (URIC).
  2. Date of approval is recorded on the withdrawal and teach-out template (see Collaborations and Partnerships templates on s).
  3. The decision to withdraw is notified to EQP.

Stage Two: Notification to Partner (where relevant)

  1. Notification of withdrawal may be sent to the collaborative partner by EQP.
  2. Notification must include the following information:
    1. date of final intake;
    2. date of final Board of Examiners;
    3. date of final graduation.

Stage three: Notification to students

  1. Students must be informed of the timeline for completing their award, consequences of academic failure or interruption of studies, and any additional support that will be provided. This is provided as follows:
    1. Validation Service, Franchise and Dual Degrees: Students are informed by the partner.
    2. Joint degree: NTU and the partner must agree who will inform students.
    3. Joint delivery: students are informed by NTU.

Stage four: Governance and quality management

  1. EQP completes the withdrawal and teach-out form (see Collaborations and Partnerships templates on the Academic Quality Hub).
  2. The SASQC (for School-based collaborative provision) or AcaPSC (for Validation Service provision) considers the withdrawal and teach-out form and approves teach-out arrangements. For School-based collaborative provision, teach-out arrangements are sent to AcaPSC for ratification.
  3. Where the course has more than 18 months of delivery time remaining then standard quality management may be undertaken. Where there are concerns about the provision enhanced monitoring may be introduced. The requirement for this and the format that this will take will be determined by AcaPSC.
  4. SASQC/URIC and AcaPSC are responsible for oversight of the quality of the provision during teach-out and ensuring that this is maintained.

Stage five: Quality management process enhanced

  1. 18 months before the final Board of Examiners takes place, an enhanced quality management process commences which includes all of the standard processes but additionally includes termly meetings via video conferencing with appropriate membership to be determined by SASQC/AcaPSC.

Stage six: Formal notification of close down

  1. Following the final Board of Examiners/Referral Board, a formal notification of close down is issued to the following:
    1. The partner
    2. EQP
    3. School Executive(s)
    4. AcaPSC, SASQC/URIC
    5. Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC)
    6. Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Board (PSRB) or Accrediting Government
    7. Collaborative Academic Lead
    8. Academic Registry

Change History

Approval Date:

01.09.26

Nature of Revisions:

New section

Implementation Date:

01.09.26