Responding to a Monitor’s Report

The main changes are the timing of the rating of the Monitor Review report, a change of who is responsible for each rating, and the use of a standardised reporting tool for the PAQC.

The process starts with the initial draft version of the Monitor’s report once it is received by the School. This version is ‘checked for accuracy’ and any identified issues are communicated with the Monitor to gain agreement on what needs to change (if anything).

The Monitor will then complete a ‘Final’ version of the report and return it to the School for filing.

We have decided not to wait for the final version as experience has shown that good communication between the School and the Monitor at the time of ‘accuracy checking’ results in very little, if any, changes between the draft and the final report. Therefore, by working with the accuracy checked draft report the School is able to immediately get on with actioning their plans for improvement.

The process described below also notes what may occur if there is a more significant difference of opinion regarding the content of the draft report. The process may be modified to allow for such additional mahi.

Responding to the Monitor’s Report Process

Step 1: Confirm the factual accuracy of the draft Monitors report

Programme Manager collaborates with Programme Leadership to review the draft report for accuracy and notes any issues for the Monitor to consider.

• If there are no issues, or only a few minor ones, then the Programme Manager returns the notarised draft report to the Monitor for sign-off.
• If there are issues with the draft report that are more than minor, the Programme Manager initiates a conversation with the Monitor to discuss these issues and to seek a resolution prior to returning the notarised draft report to the Monitor for sign-off*.

*A delay in agreeing with the Monitor on a version of the draft report for final sign-off may result in delays to progressing to Step 2 of this process. Any delays should be noted in the Outcomes Report as required.

Step 2: Complete the Outcomes Report

Programme Manager collaborates with Programme Leadership to consider the outcomes of the draft report made in-text or formally in the report or discovered as part of self-assessment (including any requirements or recommendations) and completes the following in the Outcomes Report:

• Rates the outcomes using the Degree Monitoring rubric criteria for Outcomes- Reporting Outcomes
• Provide an overview summary of the quality of the Degree Monitoring visit and report for the PAQC. (note: there is no rating for this summary and it is not shared with the Monitor or NZQA)
• Drafts an action plan to address any findings of the Monitors report (including all recommendations)

Step 3: Submit outcomes rating report and draft action plan to Programme Committee (PAQC) for review

Programme Manager submits the standard PAQC review and rating of Monitoring report memo, outcome report and action plan, along with the draft Monitors report to the next practicable PAQC hui for their consideration.

PAQC Chair guides the committee in the use the Degree Monitoring Rubric to:

• receive the Degree Monitoring draft report
• confirm and endorse the outcome rating and summary provided for the Degree Monitoring Report
• endorse the summary provided for the quality of Degree Monitoring
• consider and rate the SMART actions provided in the Outcomes Report for their potential for success
• propose and approve an overall rating for self-assessment capability for SMART actions
• set a date in the PAQC workplan to review the action plan and associated ratings (6-9 months from initial approval)

Step 4: Approved outcomes report and action plan forwarded to QAB for their review

PAQC Secretary forwards the approved review and rating of the outcomes report and action plan to to Te Poari Whai Kounga | Quality Alignment Board (QAB).

Step 5: Receipt of Final Monitors Report

Programme Manager checks the final version of the monitors report for any differences with the accuracy checked draft version of the report.

If there are no significant differences:

• Programme Manager notifies the PAQC that the report has been received with no changes.
• SQA publishes the final report to the E-Academic Library.

If there are significant variation between the draft used for rating and the returned final version:

• Programme Manager may need to resubmit an amended Outcomes Report to PAQC, and subsequently to QAB.

‘Significant’ may be interpreted as any change of meaning to a requirement or recommendation that may require a revision of action planning.

Useful Resources

All forms and rubrics mentioned in this process are provided directly to the teams at the time.

They are not available here.