Company Name: Spikey U
Company Number: 12475295
VAT 407179201
Registered Office Address: 160 City Road, London EC1V 2NX
P: 0800-702-2625
E: hello@spikeyu.com
W: https://spikeyu.com
Z: ZoomMe
Principles of Academic Governance
Authority
• The primary organs of governance are
The Quality Board,
The Curriculum Board, and
The Delivery Unit.
• The Quality Board is the senior authority and is directly responsible for setting the mission, approving the strategic plan, oversight of systems of control and accountability, including financial and operational controls and risk assessment.
• The Curriculum Board is the academic authority and is responsible for regulating and directing the academic work of the University in teaching, examining and research and for award of all Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions of the University.
• The Delivery Unit is the senior management team and is responsible for implementing the strategic plan and managing the functions and day-to-day operational activities in service of the Quality Board and The Curriculum Board.
• The primary written authority for how Spikey U shall be governed is
Spikey U's Book of Household Management(The Book).
The Book contains
• The Academic Regulation
• The Staff Handbook
• The Student Handbook.
2.7 Registration Policy
Introduction
This Policy sets out the conditions for students registering or changing their status at the School and maximum periods of registration. This policy is applicable to all students.
Registration
All students, whether new or returning, must register with the School at the beginning of each academic year. On completion of Registering, students will become Current, this will enable them to access student services and teaching resources as well as receive credit for their attendance. Where applicable, once registered, a student’s attendance will be confirmed to Student Finance England and their Student Loan will be released.
New Students
New students will register in two stages at the beginning of their programme. First, students will be invited to complete online registration. Second, students will register in-person on campus to confirm their attendance and provide any required documentation to verify their identity and qualifications. Students must adhere to the instructions provided and deadlines stated in all communications. Failure to comply may result in a student’s place being deferred.
New students will be required to bring in all original certificates of their qualifications that were a part of their offer conditions; these will be verified as part of in-person registration. Students will also be required to bring with them a proof of ID, this must be an original.
Returning Students
Returning students will be required to register online at the beginning of the academic year. Students will need to comply with all instructions and deadlines stated in all communications. Failure to comply may result in a student’s place being deferred.
International Students
International students sponsored by the School must have a CAS assigned, with stated course date corresponding with the date of in-person registration, or induction, whichever is earlier. The CAS Issuance Policy sets out the procedure for CAS issuance in further detail, including the stipulation that prior to registration, sponsored students will be required to deposit a minimum of £5,000 with the School
All Students
Timely registration of students within the specified deadline is required so that:
· Students are aware of and agree to abide by the provisions in the Terms and Conditions, the related regulations and procedures, policies and codes, the Student Privacy Notice, Data Consent Notice, and other notifications;
· The School is provided with assurance of the identity of its students. A student’s ID Card must be retained at all times whilst on School premises, since it provides evidence that they are student of the School, and allows access to School facilities such as the library. ID cards must also be presented in formal assessments;
· The timely payment of tuition fees, grants and bursaries can take place;
· All students are encompassed within the full range of School academic and support facilities, including access to the Learning Management System (LMS) and IT services;
· Have their student record opened;
· Are allocated Student ID cards.
· Students can undertake formal assessment as required; and
· In case of any emergency, the School has the most up-to-date information about the student’s addresses and contact details.
All students must register by the deadline specified; failure to do so may result in the deferral of the offer of a place or suspension of registration until the following term. In exceptional circumstances and where there is good cause, registration may be delayed by up to 14 calendar days of the commencement of the academic year. “Commencement of the academic year” means commencement of teaching on the programme.
Students will not be permitted to register after 14 calendar days after the commencement of teaching, except where there are exceptional, extenuating circumstances, where a retrieval plan is agreed and only with the written permission of the Registrar.
Students may be enrolled conditional on results being outstanding on qualifying awards and may be permitted, at the discretion of the Director of Teaching and Learning, to attend classes, but may not be registered until evidence of results on all qualifying awards is submitted.
No credit will be given for attendance to any programme until registration has been completed.
All students are required to keep their personal information up to date; this can be done by logging into Quercus online portal where students are able to amend their own personal information.
Maximum Periods of Registration
The period of registration will commence on the date that the student first registers onto the School’s programme.
The minimum period within which a student will be expected to complete the programme of study and associated assessment is 18 months; the maximum period is 4 years. This includes periods of leave of absence, repeat years of study, resits and deferral of assessments due to Extenuating Circumstances.
A student will remain registered for the maximum period of the award or until they have achieved the award or the registration has been terminated, whichever comes first.
Changes to Registration
Jury Service
Students may be summoned for jury service during their time at the School. Such service may be incompatible with their study. Students summoned for jury service must contact the Director of Teaching and Learning to discuss the impact of this on their study.
Students may seek to be excused from jury service by contacting the Registrar at the earliest opportunity, who will normally provide a letter supporting an application to be excused. Students should note however that excusal is not a right.
Interruption of Studies
A student may make an application to suspend registration from their programme (interrupt their studies) if they have a long-term difficulty that affects their studies. Interruptions may be granted for a defined period of a minimum of one term up to a maximum of twelve months, subject to the approval of the Director of Teaching and Learning or their nominee.
A student given approval to take an interruption of studies within the academic year or term may be required to repeat part or all of that academic year or term.
A student who has completed the academic year or term and all associated assessments successfully shall be permitted to progress to the next level of the programme.
During an interruption of studies, the registration of the student is suspended and they have no right to avail themselves of School services unless this is expressly authorised in writing by the School. The school will put in place mechanisms to support students who have decided to interrupt their studies to support them in re-engaging in the programme. The student’s dedicated academic tutor will meet with the student (either face-to-face or virtually):
· At the beginning of their period of absence;
· Half-way through the period of absence;
· One month before they are due to resume their studies; and · At the point of resumption.
Withdrawal of Registration
· Half-way through the period of absence;
· One month before they are due to resume their studies; and · At the point of resumption.
Withdrawal of Registration
If a student wishes to withdraw their registration and leave the School before completion of their programme, they are advised to speak to their academic tutor in the first instance. If the student decides to withdraw and terminate their registration, they must give notice in writing to the Faculty Manager (studentenquieries@t-lis.org). Students should refer to the School’s Terms and Conditions; however, fees already paid will not normally be refunded and any monies due will be charged notwithstanding the withdrawal.
Termination
A student may be presumed to have withdrawn and terminated their registration if:
· They do not re-register within the specific registration period at the beginning of the academic year; or
· They fail to meet the attendance requirements for LIS teaching and learning activities as set out in the School’s Attendance Policy, and are unable to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence.
Persons who are classified as withdrawn are not students and have no right to avail themselves of School services unless any are expressly authorized in writing by the School.
An application for entry from a student who has previously withdrawn or terminated their registration shall be treated as a new application.
Terminating Registration
The School shall reserve the right to terminate a student’s registration, temporarily or permanently, who:
· Is in arrears with the payment of fees or any other dues to the School; or
· Has failed to satisfy the academic requirements necessary to continue on their programme of studies; or
· Has temporarily withdrawn from the School and has failed to meet the conditions laid down for resumption of study; or
· Has been disciplined in so far as the disciplinary action taken by the School relates to registration or re-registration; or
· Has provided materially inaccurate information in support of their application; or
· Has acquired a criminal conviction of sufficient seriousness or has failed to declare a police caution or criminal conviction during the course of their studies.
Appealing termination
A student may appeal against the decision to terminate their registration via the School’s Academic Appeals Procedure.
Under the provisions of this Procedure, a student who has exhausted the School’s internal appeals procedure and has been issued with a Completion of Procedures Letter may refer their appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), within 12 months of receiving this letter. The OIA is an independent body established by the Government and funded by the higher education sector to run an independent student complaints scheme for higher education institutions in England and Wales.
Examinations and Assessments Regulations for Students
Introduction
These Examinations and Assessments Regulations and Procedures for Students relate to formal summative examinations and assessments. Consistent implementation of these regulations is crucial in safeguarding academic standards and ensuring fairness to
students. Higher education providers have an obligation to ensure that the awards they make meet nationally agreed standards. The UK Quality Code for Higher Education requires providers to “operate equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment” in order to achieve this. This means that assessments must accurately reflect or test the extent to which students have achieved the learning outcomes of their programme
students. Higher education providers have an obligation to ensure that the awards they make meet nationally agreed standards. The UK Quality Code for Higher Education requires providers to “operate equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment” in order to achieve this. This means that assessments must accurately reflect or test the extent to which students have achieved the learning outcomes of their programme
These Regulations and Procedures have been developed in line with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and in relation to the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education Advice and Guidance – Assessments . They should be read in conjunction with the School’s Assessment and Classification Framework, and its Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure.
Summative examinations and assessments at the School will take a variety of forms, including written assignments, presentations, groupwork, and skills performance, and may include examinations. Some of these may be under proctored, time-constrained conditions such as an unseen examination, an in-class test or written piece of work, an in-class presentation or a piece of personal reflection. The forms of assessment and their weighting and timing are set out in the School’s module forms and programme specifications.
Linked Regulations and Procedures
These Examination and Assessment Regulations and Procedures for Students cover:
A. Provision of Information for Students
B. Examinations: Rules for Candidate Conduct
C. Release of Results
Guidance on Extenuating Circumstances can be found in the School’s Deferrals, Extensions and Extenuating Policy and Procedure. Guidance on reasonable adjustments are set out in the School’s Disability Policy. The Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure define good academic practice and academic malpractice (and associated penalties). The Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy sets out the principles for equity and inclusion in assessment. The Academic Appeals Procedure sets out how a student may appeal an academic result or decision by an academic body.
The School’s Marking and Moderation Policy sets out how assessments are marked and moderated. The External Examiners Policy and Procedure covers the recruitment, role and
support provided to External Examiners. The School’s Governance Overview sets out the membership and terms of reference of the Board of Examiners.
A. Provision of Information for Students
An indicative calendar of assessments will be published in the Student Handbook at the beginning of each academic year. The assessment schedule will be published no later than the beginning of each term. The detailed timing and location of each examination will be published on the student Learning Management System (LMS) two weeks in advance of the first examination sitting. The information published will include rules for candidates, and any materials permitted. The Registrar or nominee will ensure the timely provision of information about examinations to candidates on the LMS.
Students will be given constructive feedback on their performance within two weeks of their results being confirmed by the Board of Examiners, to promote learning and assist development; they will also be encouraged to reflect on their own performance. Feedback will be based on clear assessment criteria and will clarify to the student how the mark was derived and the extent to which learning outcomes have been met.
B. Examinations: Rules for Candidate Conduct
Candidates may not enter the examination room after the beginning of the examination or leave during the last 30 minutes. On entering the examination room, candidates must deposit all bags and unauthorised sources of information in a place designated by the invigilator. Candidates may not bring additional materials to their desks in the examination room unless expressly permitted.
Where calculators are permitted, they must be cordless, non-programmable, non-networked, silent and without case or cover.
Candidates must switch off their mobile phones and smart watches and leave them in their bags in the place designated by the invigilator.
Candidates must display their School identity card in a prominent position on their desk.
Candidates must behave in an orderly manner in the examination room, taking care not to disturb others. A candidate creating significant disruption may be removed by the chief invigilator and excluded from the examination. In this case the chief invigilator will notify the Registrar or their nominee of the incident, who will determine whether to initiate disciplinary procedures against the candidate.
Candidates must not communicate with any other candidate in the examination room, by any means.
Candidates may bring a water bottle (with the label removed) into the examination room, but no other drinks and no food.
Any candidate who wishes to attract the invigilator’s attention must raise their hand.
Where a candidate wishes to temporarily leave the examination room for a bathroom break, they must seek permission from an invigilator, and must be accompanied by an invigilator.
Candidates must not remove any question papers, answer scripts, other paper used or unused or any aids provided by the School from the examination room.
A candidate whose script is deemed illegible by the module leader concerned, in consultation with the Registrar or nominee, may be required to contribute to the costs of having the script professional transcribed.
A candidate suspected of academic misconduct in an examination will be reported and dealt with under the Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure.
C. Release of Results
Provisional Results
On the authority of the Registrar, provisional results of programme awards, including classifications and results on the completion of designated stages in the programme, may be published to candidate prior to the meetings of the Board(s) of Examiners, provided that it is made clear that the recommendations for awards are subject to confirmation by the Board(s) of Examiners and approval by the Academic Council.
Provisional results on individual module summative assessments may be released to students on the authority of the Director of Teaching and Learning, once these results have been internally moderated.
Final Results
Progression and award results will only be published to students as confirmed results when they have been approved by the respective Board of Examiners and ratified by the Academic Council. When results of awards have been approved by the Academic Council, the results shall be final.
Monitoring and Review
These Examinations and Assessments Regulations and Procedures will be reviewed annually by the Director of Teaching and Learning, drawing on input from the Programme Monitoring Review Procedure and External Examiner reports, with changes authorised by the Academic Council.
Marking and Moderation Policy
Introduction
The School is committed to ensuring validity, accuracy and consistency in its marking process. This Policy sets out how summative assessed work for the School’s programme is marked and moderated. It enables staff involved in marking and moderating summative assessments completed by students to be “guided by clear processes which address the degree-awarding body’s requirements. In particular arrangements for, and the degree- awarding body’s definition of, first and second marking are clearly set out and applied and include guidance on how agreement will be reached on the final marks to be awarded”, in accordance with the QAA’s UK Quality Code: Advice and Guidance: Assessment.
This Policy has been developed in line with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, the QAA’s Advice and Guidance on Assessment and External Expertise, and the UK Professional Standards Framework for Higher Education.
Related Policies and Procedures
This Policy should be read in conjunction with the School’s General Academic Regulations, notably the Academic Framework, the Assessment and Classification Framework, the Security of Examinations and Assessments Procedures, Examinations and Assessments Regulations and Procedures for Students, the External Examiners Policy and Procedure, and the Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure.
Scope
This policy applies to all summative assessments, on all modules of the School’s programmes. It does not cover the design of assessments, marking schemes or rubrics, or the scrutiny process before the release of assessments. Nor does it cover formative assessment marking. It relates solely to the marking process which continues up and until external moderation is completed.
Definitions
Definitions of terms can be found in the Glossary for the School’s General Academic Regulations.
Training
It is the Director of Teaching and Learning’s responsibility to ensure, both through recruitment and staff development, that markers are competent in their subject area, in marking assessments, and in giving feedback on assessments. In addition, the Director of Teaching and Learning shall support staff in developing and confirming their shared
understanding of professional judgment in relation to assessments. Staff development activities delivered by the Director of Teaching and Learning may include:
New Marker Training;
Refresher Training for experienced markers;
Calibration Events, where new and experienced markers ensure that they are
properly calibrated within a programme and with regard to academic levels when marking assessments that require judgment against a mark scheme or criteria.
Marking and Moderation Process
There are five stages in the marking and moderation process for summative assessments at the School:
Standardisation;
Marking;
Moderation;
Assessment Leader sign-off;
External Examiner.
Stage 1: Standardisation
The standardisation process precedes full marking of scripts and ensures that markers are confident that they are marking consistently in accordance with the mark scheme.
The Assessment Leader and markers are all expected to take part in this process by marking the standardisation scripts and then meeting (either in person, or online, or by conference call) to discuss the marks awarded, their approach to the mark scheme, and, where permitted, to make changes to the scheme to ensure it reflects the appropriate academic standards.
Assessment Leaders must choose one of the following methods of determining how many scripts are standardised:
i.At least one common script standardised by all markers; or
ii.At least three scripts standardised by all markers where the Assessment Leader has
ii.At least three scripts standardised by all markers where the Assessment Leader has
determined that one is a top mark script, one is a middle mark script, and one is fail mark script.
Markers must adhere to the agreed mark scheme. If after the standardisation meeting, markers encounter unusual answers not discussed during the standardisation meeting or included in the mark scheme, they are required to refer these to the Module Leader or their nominee.
Stage 2: Marking
The marker(s) mark the scripts allocated to them. Each script is marked once by a single marker.
Stage 3: Moderation
Moderation is where a moderator examines a batch of scripts from a single marker. There will be a single moderator for each assessment or module.
Pass/Fail Assessments
Where an assessment is pass/fail with no passing gradations, for each marker the Assessment Leader must create a moderation bundle consisting of:
Fail Mark Scripts
Middle Mark Scripts
Top Mark Scripts
The moderator’s role is to determine the following question: Has the marker correctly applied the mark scheme and/or marking criteria to the scripts in the moderation bundle?
If the answer is yes, the first marker’s marks for all scripts (i.e., not just those included in the bundle) are approved, and considered to be the final mark awarded to the candidate.
If the answer is no, the moderator must decide between the following two choices:
If the moderator takes the view that there is an identifiable issue with the
marker’s marking (e.g., the treatment of a particular question), then the moderator must reject the sample and return it to the first marker, and ask them to remark all scripts (i.e., not just those included in the bundle) on this point, or, where multiple points are identified, on each point identified. The moderator must discuss the issue with the first marker to ensure that any differences in approach are resolved and inform the Director of Teaching and Learning of the issue.
If the moderator takes the view that there is no identifiable issue, and therefore the marking is inconsistent, they must reject the bundle and all scripts marked by the initial marker will be marked by a new first marker. Where this happens, the new marker will be subject to the moderation process.
The moderator will record their view on the sample(s) they receive in writing.
At any point in the moderation process, a moderator is entitled to ask to see other scripts from the same marker in order to determine whether the marker has correctly applied the mark scheme/criteria.
Stage 4: Assessment Leader Sign-Off
Where a moderator has determined that the marker has correctly applied the mark scheme/criteria to the script in the moderation bundle, the Assessment Leader can sign off the marks awarded by that marker.
Where a moderator has determined that the marker has not correctly applied the mark scheme/criteria to the scripts in the moderation bundle, the Assessment Leader must be satisfied that the remedial work required to all of the marker’s scripts has been completed to satisfaction, at which point s/he can sign off the marks awarded by that marker.
Stage 5: External Examiner
The External Examiner must be sent the following:
A schedule of final marks for all scripts;
A sample size and range of scripts as follows:
The composition of a sample must include:
i. All fails within 10% of the pass borderline; and
i. All fails within 10% of the pass borderline; and
An appropriate sample of assessments which fall within 2% below and 1% above the grade classification boundary; and
A sample of assessments throughout the top classification.
The External Examiner shall have the right to increase the size and composition of the sample as they see fit.
The rationale for the sample size and range required is to ensure that the External Examiner has sufficient evidence on which to come to a judgment on the School’s classification standards. This approach offers assurances as to the integrity of the External Examiner procedure and gives confidence in the security of awards.
The External Examiner will be invited to confirm that, on the basis of the sample they have marked, the marking standards are reasonable and in line with sector standards.
Where an External Examiner has marked a whole cohort or whole grade cohort for an assessment, such as all fails, the External Examiner may recommend that an individual student’s mark be amended. In such cases the rationale for the change should be agreed by the internal marker(s). Where a whole cohort or a whole cohort grade for an assessment has not been sampled, the marks of individual students may not be amended. To do so may lead to unfairness to other students whose work was not part of the sample.
Where an External Examiner finds repeated instances of cases where they disagree with the mark awarded, they may either recommend that a re-scaling of the marks be applied to the whole cohort or recommend that the whole cohort be remarked. The External Examiner Policy and Procedure sets out how the External Examiner may report confidentially directly to the Chief Executive at any time where they are concerned about standards and performance, particularly where they are concerned that assessments are being conducted in a way that jeopardises either the fair treatment of individual students or the standards of the School’s awards.
Records and Auditing
The Assessment Leader is responsible for ensuring that:
Scripts have been properly annotated to identify the individual marks and total mark
awarded; and,
Comments are recorded on the script or a marking scheme to provide feedback to
students; and
Scripts have been properly annotated to indicate that they have been moderated, if
appropriate; and,
Scripts have the final mark awarded clearly and unambiguously stated on the face of them; and,
Moderation written findings are retained; and,
Mark schedules are accurate; and,
There is liaison with the Registry to ensure marks are recorded accurately on the
student record and Board of Examiners papers.
Monitoring and Review
The Marking and Moderation Policy will be reviewed on an annual basis by the Director of Teaching and Learning and any changes authorised by the Academic Council.
Deferral, Extension and Extenuating Circumstances Policy and Procedure
Introduction
The School recognises that students may suffer from a sudden illness, or other serious or unforeseen event or set of circumstances, which adversely affects their ability to complete an assessment, or the results they obtain for an assessment. This Policy and Procedure sets out the School’s approach applying extenuating circumstances in these situations.
A student who is prevented from attending or completing a formal assessment component or who feels that their performance would be (or has been) seriously impaired by extenuating circumstances, may submit a deferral request. This Policy and Procedure also sets out the procedure for applying for a deferral and how this is determined, as well the procedure for applying for an extension of a deadline date for coursework.
Deferral Procedure
Where extenuating circumstances have impaired a student’s ability to prepare for an examination or assessment, the student may apply to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel, to defer the examination or assessment to the next available sitting.
The application for a deferral must:
Be made by 12.00 noon the working day before the date of the examination or assessment (a working day is defined as Monday to Friday, excluding weekends and public holidays);
Be made by email, to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel at
extenuatingcircumstances@t-lis.org, including:
Student name;
Student number;
Contact details;
Which assessment component the student is applying for a deferral for;
Extenuating circumstances on which the student is relying to justify the extension, supported by objective and authoritative evidence (e.g., from a qualified medical practitioner).
The Extenuating Circumstances Panel must be satisfied that:
The illness or other good cause would render the student unfit to enter the examination or assessment; and
That the illness or other good cause would either:
Have a significant and adverse impact on the student’s performance in the
examination or assessment; or
Would prevent the student from sitting the examination or assessment.
Where the Extenuating Circumstances Panel is satisfied that the above conditions have been met, the student will be withdrawn from the examination or assessment and deferred.
The School aims to process deferral applications by 18.00 on the day before the assessment. If a student has not received confirmation of their deferral prior to the examination, they should assume that it has not been granted and therefore should expect to sit the examination or assessment.
Where an application for a deferral is received after the deadline, defined as 12.00 noon the working day before the date of the examination or assessment, at the latest, a student will be required to submit an Academic Appeal based on Extenuating Circumstances (see below).
Where a condition is enduring (I.e., lasting for 12 months or more), candidates with specific learning differences and/or disabilities or medical conditions are encouraged to disclose this to the Student Support Department, in line with the School’s Disability Policy, in order to access an agreed and signed learning contract, which includes recommendations for examination concessions. This is required at least one month before the date of the examination, to ensure that any reasonable adjustments are considered and accommodated. In all cases, evidence from a GP, doctor or consultant, educational psychologist or equivalent will be required.
The Extenuating Circumstances Panel shall keep a record of deferrals and extensions granted and make these available to the Registry.
A deferral application for particular dates is normally expected to cover all examinations and assessments on those specified dates.
Where a student seeks to defer one or more but not all of the diet of examinations or assessments that they would normally be required to take within a single examination or assessment sitting, the student must provide evidence to justify the split of the examination and assessment diet. The Extenuating Circumstances Panel must be satisfied that the integrity of the examination process has not been undermined or that the student has not gained an unfair advantage over other students who have taken the full diet in one period.
Students are required to completed their programme in accordance with the time limits set out in the School’s Registration Policy. Deferrals do not extend the permitted maximum period for completing an award programme.
Extension Procedure
Where a student considers that because of illness or other good cause, there are valid reasons for seeking an extension to the deadline for handing in an assessment, the student may apply to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel for an extension of the deadline.
Students with active learning contracts, established in line with the School’s Disability Policy, can negotiate extensions to coursework in certain circumstances where the Student Support Department and the Director of Teaching and Learning are satisfied that such an agreement does not place the student at an unfair advantage nor compromises academic standards (see Reasonable Adjustments section below).
The application for an extension must be:
Received by 12.00 noon on the last working day before the deadline (a working day is defined as Monday to Friday, excluding weekends and public holidays);
Made in writing, by email, to the Extenuating Circumstances Panel at extenuatingcircumstances@t-lis.org including:
Student name;
Student number;
Contact details;
Which assessment component the student is applying for an extension for;
Extenuating circumstances on which the student is relying to justify the extension, supported by objective and authoritative evidence (e.g., from a qualified medical practitioner).
In exercising its discretion, the Extenuating Circumstances Panel must be satisfied that the illness or other good cause would prevent the student from completing and submitting the assessment within the timeframe permitted for the assessment. Where the Extenuating Circumstances Panel is satisfied that this condition has been met, a new submission deadline will be set.
Academic Appeals on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances
Definitions
Extenuating circumstances are defined as unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances that may have a detrimental effect on academic performance.
The School encourages students who do not consider themselves fit to sit an examination or who believe that an assessment would be impaired because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances outside their control, to use the procedures open to them such as deferral of an assessment or an extension of the deadline for submission, in advance of the examination or assessment (see above).
Where a student believes that their summative assessment has been adversely affected by unforeseen circumstances, they may make an appeal on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances under the School’s Academic Appeals Procedure.
Fit to Sit Policy
The School requires all students to sign a declaration that they are fit to do so before taking an examination or submitting an assessment.
A student who has signed a declaration that they are fit to sit an examination or submit an assessment may not submit an Academic Appeal on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances:
They are affected by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control after signing the fit to sit declaration but before the end of the examination; or
They are subsequently diagnosed as having been suffering from a condition at the time of the assessment of which, for a reason supported by evidence, they were unaware at the time of assessment; or
At the time of signing the fit to sit declaration they were suffering from a condition which impaired their ability to make a rational judgment as to their ability to take the assessment; or
At the time of signing the fit to sit declaration they were for any other valid reason unwilling or unable to disclose the extenuating circumstances that rendered them unfit to sit.
In all of the above cases, the student must believe that these circumstances affected their performance in the assessment and in each case they must provide objective and authoritative evidence of their condition.
Stage 1: Lodging of an Academic Appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances
A student may make an Academic Appeal on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances where they believe that their assessment has been adversely affected by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. Students may make such an application:
If the circumstances prevented the students from undertaking all or part of an assessment task;
If the assessment task is completed, but the student believes that the extenuating circumstances have had a detrimental effect on the standard of work presented for assessment.
Students must make an Academic Appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances by email to the Registrar no more than 7 calendar days after the assessment took place or was due (registrar@t-lis.org).
The application must include:
Student full name;
Student unique number;
Contact details;
Which assessment(s) the application for Extenuating Circumstances refers to;
Extenuating circumstances on which the student is relying to justify the
application, supported by objective and authoritative evidence (e.g., from a
qualified medical practitioner);
Explanation of why the student could not instead apply for a deferral or extension,
as well as explanation of any fit to sit declaration signed, and why this should be discounted (see above). These explanations should be supported by objective and authoritative evidence.
Objective and authoritative evidence must show the time and character of the circumstances; it must be original, signed documentation from an appropriate third party (e.g., a doctor or psychiatrist), and should be proximate and relevant to the assessment or assessment
period. If a documented submitted as evidence is not in English, an independent translation must be provided.
period. If a documented submitted as evidence is not in English, an independent translation must be provided.
Late applications will not be considered unless the student is able to prove that they were mentally or physically incapable, of submitting an application within the prescribed time limit, or were for any other valid reasons unwilling or unable to do so. Late applications must be accompanied by authoritative and objective evidence which confirms that the student was incapable of submitting an application within the prescribed time limit.
Students taken ill or who experience any unforeseen or unavoidable incidents during an assessment are expected to notify the invigilator before leaving the venue, to ensure that the time and nature of the illness or incident is noted in the invigilation report. Students will also be required to seek medical attention on the day of the assessment or as close to it as possible if they feel their performance was adversely affected by illness.
Students may not make an appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances as a result of technical or other problems (such as a computer failure) unless the problem was with an LIS machine or an external server (e.g., Turnitin). The Extenuating Circumstances Panel may however accept these problems as reason to give a limited extension to an assessment deadline.
Appeals on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances under the Academic Appeals Procedure are intended to cover circumstances which, though they may cover a period of time, are essentially transient, and do not prevent the student from continuing with the work of the programme.
If a student is affected by serious ongoing circumstances (which may for example be medical or personal) which appear unlikely to be resolved or significantly improved within the
timescale of the student’s assessment for a programme, the student may be referred to the Student Support Department or advised to interrupt their studies.
The Registrar shall keep a record of all academic appeals, including those based on Extenuating Circumstances, and report these to the Academic Council on an annual basis. The Registrar shall also keep a record of any granted concessions per student, and will take this into account when considering an Extenuating Circumstances application, including reporting these to the Academic Appeals Board.
Stage 2: Initial Consideration
The Registrar will issue the student with an acknowledgment of receipt within 5 working
days of receiving the formal appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances; this should be kept by the student as evidence that their appeal has been successfully lodged.
days of receiving the formal appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances; this should be kept by the student as evidence that their appeal has been successfully lodged.
The Registrar will determine whether the information presented by the student constitutes a case that satisfies the threshold conditions for a valid academic appeal on the grounds
of Extenuating Circumstances, and will communicate this decision to the student within 10 working days of the receipt of the appeal.
of Extenuating Circumstances, and will communicate this decision to the student within 10 working days of the receipt of the appeal.
To meet the threshold conditions for a valid academic appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances, the application must:
Be made in writing in line with the guidelines set out in Stage 1 above, and include all the information set out in those guidelines; and
Clearly identify the unforeseeable and unavoidable Extenuating Circumstance(s); and
Have been received within the time limits set out above; and
Include evidence which demonstrates to the Registrar or their nominee that the
extenuating circumstance is connected to the assessment; and
Shows evidence and grounds that are reasonably arguable that:
The extenuating circumstance(s) arose either immediately before or during the exam sitting or the summative assessment submission deadline that affected the assessment outcome—specifically, it arose after 12pm on the working day before the examination or coursework submission
deadline; or
The student had a valid, documented reason for being unable or unwilling
to disclose the factor(s) that affected their performance before the
deadline for applying for a Deferral or Extension
Where the student had a request rejected by the Extenuating Circumstances
Panel, the application must show evidence and grounds that are reasonably arguable that:
There was a procedural error, irregularity or maladministration in the decision-making of the Extenuating Circumstances Panel or
The decision of the Extenuating Circumstances was not made fairly on the basis of the evidence originally submitted.
The Registrar or their nominee will inform the student in writing that either:
The Extenuating Circumstances application is rejected because it is not admissible (does not constitute a “case”, e.g., incorrectly submitted or submitted out of the time limit); or
The Extenuating Circumstances application is rejected because it does not satisfy the threshold conditions for valid concession as set out above; or
That a case satisfying the threshold conditions for a valid appeal on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances has been established, and the Academic Appeals Board will consider the appeal.
Where the Academic Appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances is rejected, the student will be informed in the Registrar’s written response that they have the right to request a review of the decision by the Chief Executive or their nominee within 5 working days of their notification by the Registrar that their appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances has been rejected.
Such a review will only be undertaken where the applicant clearly states the reason(s) why the decision of the Registrar or their nominee is unsound. Failure to do so will constitute an invalid request for review by the Chief Executive or nominee, and will be dismissed without further consideration.
The Chief Executive or nominee will either:
Reject the appeal; or
Accept the appeal on the grounds of extenuating circumstances and refer it to the
Academic Appeals Board for consideration.
Where the Chief Executive or nominee rejects the academic appeal on the grounds of extenuating circumstances, the student will be informed in writing that the School’s internal appeal procedures have been exhausted.
Where the student is notified that their case has been referred to the Academic Appeals Board for consideration (either by the Registrar or by the Chief Executive or nominee), they student will be in writing informed of:
The date of the Academic Appeals Board meeting;
The timeline for receiving a written decision (within five working days of the
Academic Appeals Board meeting);
Any evidence submission requirements and deadlines for these;
Rights to appeal the Academic Appeals Board decision.
The Chief Executive or nominee will give their written decision to the student within 10 working days of receiving the appeal for consideration.
Stay on Action
Where a student is submitting an Academic Appeal on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances on a final assessment attempt, from the date of lodging the application, a stay of execution shall be placed on any action or decision affecting the student’s registration status or progression whilst the outcome of the Extenuating Circumstances appeal is pending. Boards of Examiners shall not implement any decision, or consequential action of the final assessment attempt before the outcome of the Extenuating Circumstances appeal is known.
Pending the outcome of the Extenuating Circumstances application and where they have the right, the candidate may undertake classes, attend the School, and must prepare for and retake any assessments or examinations that have been scheduled. However, such assessments are sat at the students’ own risk.
Stage 3: Academic Appeals Board
In advance of the Board(s) of Examiners, the Academic Appeals Board will be convened to consider student requests for consideration of extenuating circumstances affecting assessment. The Academic Appeals Board consists of the Director of Admissions and Student Support or nominee (Chair), the Director of Teaching and Learning (or nominee) and at least one senior member of academic staff drawn from a pool of members previously approved by the Academic Council. Where the appeal is on the grounds of Extenuating Circumstances, the Academic Appeals Board will also co-opt an External Examiner. Where the Appeal relates to a decision of the Extenuating Circumstances Panel, the Academic Appeals Board must not comprise any member of that Panel.
In the case of Extenuating Circumstances referred under the Academic Appeals Procedure, the Academic Appeals Board is responsible for:
Considering and determining all applications from students regarding academic appeals on the basis of Extenuating Circumstances as expeditiously as is reasonably possible, having regard to the circumstances of each case and the requirements of natural justice and fairness.
Determining whether the application submitted is admissible in relation to the grounds set out in this Procedure;
Determining whether the application is supported by appropriate, objective and authoritative evidence;
Determining whether the circumstances described in the application are such as to warrant a concession and are sufficient to have had an adverse effect on the student’s performance;
Agreeing whether the application should be accepted, referred back for further information or rejected;
Where an application is accepted, agreeing the scope of the concession to be recommended to the Board of Examiners.
In making its decision, the Academic Appeals Board will investigate the appeal, call for any relevant papers, take evidence, examine witnesses and conduct any other relevant enquiries. The student has a right to review any documentation considered by the Academic Appeals Board.
The Academic Appeals Board will not have access to the students’ profile of results, and will not make decisions about the outcomes or grades of assessment. The Academic Appeals Board may consider previous Extenuating Circumstances application(s) made by the student.
The Academic Appeals Board shall determine:
That no extenuating circumstances have be substantiated by the evidence provided to or gathered by the Academic Appeals Board, and that the students’ results be processed as normal; or
That extenuating circumstances have been substantiated by the evidence provided to or gathered by the Academic Appeals Board, and recommend a concession to the Board of Examiners; these might include:
Providing a student with the opportunity to take the affected assessment(s) as if for the first time, allowing them to be given the full marks achieved for the examination or assessment, rather than imposing a cap;
Waiving late submission penalties;
Taking the extenuating circumstances for the module(s) into account at the
point of award and classification.
The Registrar will inform the student of the decision in writing within 5 working days of the Academic Appeals Board meeting. This written statement will set out:
The decision that has been made by the Academic Appeals Board;
The reasons for reaching that decision;
Any actions required by the student or the School to follow up and implement that
decision;
Details of the further right to appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator,
available to the student if they remain dissatisfied with the final outcome of the School’s internal Academic Appeals Procedure.
Where the Academic Appeals Board finds that extenuating circumstances have been substantiated by the evidence provided to or gathered by the Academic Appeals Board, the Academic Appeals Board shall submit these findings to the Board of Examiners or its subsidiary board, along with recommendations for subsequent actions.
Students should note that a degree cannot be conferred whilst an appeal is ongoing.
Consideration by the Board of Examiners
The Academic Appeals Board shall make a confidential, written report of the Extenuating Circumstances applications and its recommendations.
Upon receipt of recommendations from Academic Appeals Board, the Board of Examiners or its subsidiary board will decide whether to:
Provide a student with the opportunity to take the affected assessment(s) as if for the first time, allowing them to be given the full marks achieved for the examination or assessment, rather than imposing a cap;
Waive late submission penalties;
Determine that there is sufficient evidence of the achievement of the intended
learning outcomes from other pieces of assessment in the module(s) for an overall
mark to be derived;
Note the accepted extenuating circumstances for the module(s) and recommend
that it is taken into account at the point of award and classification.
The Board of Examiners, depending on the circumstances, may exercise discretion in deciding on the particular form any reassessment should take. Options are a viva voce examination, designed to show whether the student has satisfied the programme learning outcomes, additional assessment tasks designed to show whether the student has satisfied the programme learning outcomes, review of previous work, or normal assessment at the next available opportunity. The student will not be put in a position of unfair advantage or disadvantage: the aim will be to enable to student to be assessed on equal terms with their cohort.
Monitoring and evaluation
The Registrar will provide an annual report to the Academic Council summarising the cases that have been considered, the actions taken, a commentary on the effectiveness or otherwise of the procedures, and any recommendations for change. The Academic Council will authorise any changes to the Deferral, Extension and Extenuating Circumstances Policy and Procedure.
Academic Framework
A. Introduction
The Academic Framework defines the underpinning structure of Programmes of Study (PoS) at Spikey U. All Spikey U Awards and associated Programmes of Study must be aligned with the Academic Framework.
Purposes
The main purposes of the Academic Framework are:
• To promote a shared and common understanding of Spikey U Awards;
• To provide a reference point for setting and assessing academic standards when designing, approving, monitoring and reviewing Programmes and Modules;
• To ensure that Spikey U Qualifications are of an academic standard consistent with the standards referred to in the UK Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ);
• To ensure that Spikey U Qualifications are consistent with the Higher Education Credit Framework for England: Guidance on Academic Credit Arrangements in Higher Education in England;
B. Framework Components
A number of components define the basic structures of Spikey U Awards:
Awards
An Award is a Degree, Diploma or Certificate accredited and conferred by Spikey U following the successful completion of an approved Programme of study, or of a Level or Level(s) of an approved Programme of study.
Awards may fall into one or more of the following categories:
● Final Qualification: The intended qualification from a Programme of Study which a student will be awarded if they meet all the requirements of the Programme for which they have registered.
● Exit Award: A qualification which may be awarded on completion of an intermediate point of study in a longer Programme of study (when the student leaves the Programme), but for which the student has not registered at the outset.
An Award must meet the minimum academic standards set out in the section: Threshold Qualification Requirements.
The form of the Award Title must signify both the Level of the Award and the area(s) of study in which the study has been undertaken.
The following Qualifications may be accredited and awarded by Spikey U
Level 4
● Certificate of Higher Education (Cert HE)—exit award only
Level 5
● Diploma of Higher Education (Dip HE)—exit award only
Level 7
● Master of Science (Msc) —final qualification
Programme of Study (Programme)
A Programme of Study (Programme) is an approved, coherent path of study with specified, assessed learning outcomes leading to a specified Award in a specified Area of Study.
Programmes of Study are approved by The Curriculum Board, in line with the Programme Approval Procedure, which is set out in the document, Programme Design, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures.
Approved Programmes of Study leading to an award must have:
● Educational aims appropriate to the academic Area of Study, in alignment with relevant sector benchmarks (e.g., Subject Benchmark Statements)
● Learning outcomes at specified and approved levels of the FHEQ, the demonstrated achievement of which determines the conferment of each associated award, including interim exit awards.
Programmes may include separate Pathways. A Pathway, in this instance, is defined as an informal ‘specialism’ within a Programme. A Pathway is created through the combination of different Compulsory and Optional Modules available within the Programme. Separate Pathways do not appear on the student’s degree certificate or transcript.
Programme Documentation
Each Programme must have a definitive Programme Specification which is published and available to students. The required coverage of the Programme Specification is set out in the Programme Approval Procedure in the document, Programme Design, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures.
A Student Handbook containing a summary of the programme, modules, and assessment strategies, with links to the full detailed Programme Specification, shall be provided to students when they register at the start of each Level of the Programme and will be available on the Learning Management System. The required coverage of the Student Handbook is set out in the Student Handbook Policy.
The contents of the Programme Specification and Student Handbook must be reviewed prior to each cohort intake through the Annual Programme Monitoring Procedure, which is set out in the document, Programme Design, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures. A copy of both the Programme Specification and Student Handbook will be lodged with the Registrar with a note on any changes.
The Learning Management System (LMS) will be maintained to provide information both current and historical for each Programme and its delivery.
Academic Level
As is set out in the School’s Programme Approval Procedure, (in the document, Programme Design, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures), each Award must have an associated Academic Level which aligns with the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (FHEQ).
Programmes and Modules must be developed with reference to the FHEQ Level Descriptors. These describe the depth and complexity of each Academic Level and outline the academic skills, amount of prior knowledge and amount of learner autonomy required to pass a Programme or Module at each Academic Level.
Academic Year
A Programme runs over an academic year, starting in the Autumn, Spring and Summer and consisting of three terms:
Term A (10 taught weeks, one reading week)
Term S (10 taught weeks, one reading week)
Term S (7 taught weeks)
Term S (10 taught weeks, one reading week)
Term S (7 taught weeks)
Credit and Learning Hours
Credit is awarded to a student on successful completion of the outcomes associated with a particular block of learning at a specified Academic Level
In line with the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies (FHEQ), one credit equates to 10 notional learning hours.
A Programme of Study must meet the minimum credit requirements for the Award being awarded.
Intensity of Study
Every six-unit course requires approximately 65 hours of work. Each week, students typically spend five hours watching videos, reading cases and preparing for live sessions, and three hours working on assignments and assessments. Live sessions take place in the evening and last 75 minutes. Students are expected to review course material prior to the session and come prepared to engage fully in all activities. Additionally, faculty members and teaching assistants hold virtual office hours every week.
Modules
Modules are self-contained, credit-rated blocks of learning and teaching which make up a taught Programme of Study. The Programme Specification must specify the range of Modules which students must undertake in order to achieve the Final Award.
Credit-Weighting
Credit-Weighting
All Modules should include a single, defined credit score; students will be awarded the credit upon successful completion of the Module and the number of credits will be used in the weighting of the calculation of a Student's Progression, and Award."
On modular Undergraduate Programmes no module may be less than 15 credits nor more than 60 credits.
A Module must be assigned an Academic Level (e.g. Level 6) determining the difficulty of the Module.
A Module may be offered at more than one Academic Level (e.g. Level 5 and Level 6). Students may be taught in the same classroom, but the student will be required to achieve the learning outcomes associated with the Academic Level they are taking.
Module Characteristics
In relation to a Programme of Study, a Module may include one or more of the following characteristics:
● Compulsory: Modules which students must take to successfully complete a particular Programme.
● Optional: Specific, limited collections of Modules from which students may choose within their Programme of Study.
● Supplementary: Additional, non-credit-bearing Modules e.g. synoptic or comprehensive papers, generic skills Modules etc.
● Prerequisite: A specified preparatory Module which must have been successfully completed for a student to enroll on a subsequent Module.
● Co-requisite: A specified Module which must be taken at the same time as another Module.
● Restricted: A Module which cannot be taken by students on specified Programmes, or Pathways e.g. a Module with very similar content to one already undertaken.
● Condonable: Condonement is the award of credit for a Module despite the Pass Mark not having been achieved, provided other certain criteria have been met. The Condonable Range of marks is set out in the Assessment and Classification Framework. Optional modules are condonable
● Non-condonable: Compulsory modules are non-condonable.
C. Exit Awards
An approved Programme of Study may include one or more Exit Awards to recognise the achievements of any students unable to complete the intended Final Qualification.
Details of the minimum credit and Level requirements for each Exit Award are specified in the Minimum Award Requirements, in Section E of this Framework.
Exit Awards available in Programme Design
The Exit Awards in place on a given Programme are defined in the Programme Specification. Exit Awards are not awarded automatically, nor are they a student entitlement. The following Exit Awards may be considered as part of the Programme Approval process.
D. Minimum Award Requirements
Award Requirements describe the minimum academic standards expected of each Programme of Study leading to a LIS Qualification.
The following definitions apply:
Years of FTE study: The minimum length of time needed to complete the Qualification if studied on a full-time basis (part-time modes of study are calculated pro-rata).
Level: The academic Level at which the Qualification is awarded
FHEQ Credits: The minimum number of credits needed to successfully complete the
FHEQ Credits: The minimum number of credits needed to successfully complete the
Qualification, aligned to the UK Framework of Higher Education Qualifications.
Notional learning hours: The hours of study typically required to complete the Award, based
Notional learning hours: The hours of study typically required to complete the Award, based
on a ratio of 1 FHEQ credit to 10 notional learning hours.
Range of Levels: The Academic Levels included in the Qualification e.g. a three-year BASc includes Levels 4, 5 and 6.
Standard credits per Level: The number of FHEQ credits typically studied at each Academic Level to achieve the Qualification. The number of credits in each Level may be adjusted within defined parameters to suit the needs of the individual Programme/ field.
Possible Exit Awards: The range of Exit Awards which may be included as an approved component of a Programme of Study.
E. Period of Registration
The period of registration will commence on the date that the student first registers onto the School’s programme. The minimum and maximum periods of registration for a programme are set out in the School’s Registration Policy. A student will remain registered for the maximum period of the award or until they have achieved the award or the registration is terminated, whichever comes first.
Programme Design, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation Procedures
Overview
Rigorous and robust programme design, development, monitoring and evaluation policies and procedures are crucial in maintaining academic standards and supporting the continuous improvement of teaching and learning. They help to ensure that programmes are high quality, relevant, and market-attractive, and they ensure that programmes lead to credible and recognised positive outcomes for students. The UK Quality Code for Higher Education expects that institutions have in place formal procedures for programme approval, review and withdrawal.
The following Policies and Procedures are set out below:
A. Programme Development Policy and Procedure;
B. General Programme/Module Approval Policies and Procedures;
C. Programme Approval Procedure(including Reapproval);
D. ModuleApprovalProcedure;
E. Modifications to Programmes and Modules Procedure;
F. Programme Withdrawal Procedure;
G. Module Withdrawal Procedure;
H. Programme Monitoring Policy and Procedure;
I. Central, Summary Oversight of Programmes.
These Policies and Procedures have been developed in line with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and the UK Quality Code Advice and Guidance on Course Design and Development.
Each of these Policies and Procedures involves the engagement of students individually and collectively, through feedback and representation on key governance bodies (such as the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel and the Academic Council). The Student Engagement Framework sets out how the School engages students in decision-making and in the assurance and enhancement of the quality of their educational experience.
A. Programme Development Policy
Introduction
The School’s Programme Development Policy is in place to ensure that the
School’s programme is of a high quality and an appropriate academic standard; that it aligns to the educational mission of the School; and that it can respond quickly to the evolving needs of students and employers, as well as to academic developments in the relevant fields of study.
School’s programme is of a high quality and an appropriate academic standard; that it aligns to the educational mission of the School; and that it can respond quickly to the evolving needs of students and employers, as well as to academic developments in the relevant fields of study.
Principles
Where a proposed programme or module is to be approved or reapproved, the proposal must be rigorously evaluated in line with the relevant School procedure.
Any programme or module that is approved or re-approved must meet the following academic criteria:
It aligns with the School’s Mission, Strategic Plan and Academic Plan;
It is educationally robust, and will provide a learning opportunity which will give all
students a fair and reasonable chance of achieving the academic standards
required for successful completion of their degree;
It is set at the standard appropriate to the level of the award, i.e., it aligns with the
relevant Qualifications Frameworks (e.g., the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications), any sector subject benchmarks (e.g., any relevant Subject Benchmark Statements and/or standards set for comparable programmes in the sector), and is in keeping with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and associated QAA Advice and Guidance;
It is consistent with the School’s associated General Academic Regulations;
It can be properly resourced for the number of projected students;
It does not duplicate or undermine existing and continuing provision at theSchool;
Where it is a re placement, reasonable and appropriate safeguards are in place fo registered students;
It promotes confidence internally and externally in the standards and quality of
award and non-award programmes at the School;
It is developed with due regard for the Competition and Markets Authority
guidance, UK Higher Education Providers—Advice on Consumer Protection Law;
The impact on students with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010 is fully considered, and as far as is reasonable, the programme/module design, delivery, content and assessment methods are inclusive;
The views of students, external academic experts, and any other relevant stakeholders are considered and appropriately reflected.
A proposed programme must be well-structured in terms of student progression, and must have overall coherence and intellectual integrity.
The business case for a programme must also be signed off by the Board of Directors for the programme to be approved by the Academic Council.
B. General Programme/Module Approval Policies
General policies
All programmes of study leading to an award must be approved by the Academic Council and the Board of Directors prior to their introduction. The Academic Council approves the academic quality and standards of the programme; the Board of Directors approves the programme from a financial point of view.
Programmes and modules must undergo a formal evaluation process prior to approval by the Academic Council as set out in the relevant School procedure (see below).
Programmes and modules will be approved by the Academic Council for a specified period up to a maximum of five years, at which point they will require reapproval. Where a module is approved for addition to a programme, the module approval will expire alongside
its programme.
its programme.
Procedures
All programmes and modules must be proposed, designed, documented and evaluated in line with the relevant School procedure.
The procedures are as follows:
The procedures are as follows:
Programme Approval/Reapproval Procedure;
Module Approval Procedure;
Programme/Module Modification Procedures.
The above procedures must be conducted in such a manner that ensures that each approved programme, module and non-award programme meets the criteria set out in the School’s Programme Development Policy (Section A above).
Each procedure will specify:
The approval Panel, and links to its composition and terms of reference;
The required documentation and evidence for submission to the approval panel;
The responsibilities of the approval panel;
The evaluation criteria;
The range of recommendations available to the approval panel; and
The process by which conditions affecting approval must be demonstrated to have
been met before the programme is permitted to begin.
For new programmes, the business case for the programme must be signed off by the Board of Directors.
The Academic Council will reach a decision on the approval of a programme/module having taken into account the recommendations of the relevant approval panel. As is set out in the Academic Council: Membership and Terms of Reference, in these discussions, the Director of Teaching and Learning will cede the Chair of the Academic Council to an independent member who is not a member of a Programme/Module Approval Panel; the Director of Teaching and Learning will also cede his/her voting rights. These provisions are to ensure that the Director of Teaching and Learning is not “marking his/her own work”.
Having reached a decision on the approval of a programme/module on its academic merits, the Academic Council will notify the Board of Directors on its conclusions.
Suspension or Withdrawal of Approval
The Academic Council may decide, and accordingly advise the Board of Directors, that the academic approval of a programme of study or module should be suspended or withdrawn where there is evidence that it:
No longer satisfies the minimum acceptable academic standards; or,
Has not been reapproved within the time limit specified in the Academic Council’s approval; or,
Has breached the parameters agreed by the Academic Council for delivery of
the programme/module, leading to significant detriment to the student experience
or major harm to the School’s reputation; or,
Has ceased to provide students with a fair and reasonable chance of achieving the
standard required for successfully completing the programme.
In the event of a programme approval being suspended for more than one calendar year, the approval of the programme shall be withdrawn.
Before making a decision on whether to suspend or withdraw academic approval of
a programme or module, the Academic Council will consider the advice of relevant parties such as the programme or module leader and relevant external academic experts. The Academic Council must also be satisfied that that the standards of the awards directly affected by suspension or withdrawal and the interests and rights of the students registered on the programme, will be reasonably safeguarded. When the Academic Council is making a decision on whether to suspend or withdraw academic approval of a programme or module, the Director of Teaching and Learning must cede the Chair of the Academic Council
to an independent member of the Council.
a programme or module, the Academic Council will consider the advice of relevant parties such as the programme or module leader and relevant external academic experts. The Academic Council must also be satisfied that that the standards of the awards directly affected by suspension or withdrawal and the interests and rights of the students registered on the programme, will be reasonably safeguarded. When the Academic Council is making a decision on whether to suspend or withdraw academic approval of a programme or module, the Director of Teaching and Learning must cede the Chair of the Academic Council
to an independent member of the Council.
C. Programme Approval Procedure (including Reapproval)
Purpose of Procedure
This document describes the School’s procedure for the development and approval of new programmes. This procedure applies to the development of all new taught programmes.
The purpose of having a formal procedure for the development and approval of programmes is to ensure new and reapproved programmes reflect and support the School’s academic mission, provide a high-quality academic experience for students and maintain appropriate academic standards. The procedure, therefore, requires that the development and approval process:
ensures that threshold standards of approved programmes meet the threshold standards described in the UK Framework for Higher Education Qualifications;
ensures that standards above the threshold are reliable over time and reasonably comparable to those set and achieved by other UK degree awarding bodies;
takes appropriate account of external points of reference and external and independent points of expertise, including students;
makes use of appropriate external and independent expertise in setting standards;
ensures that approved programmes will provide a high-quality academic experience to
all students from all backgrounds;
is communicated effectively to key stakeholders;
clearly assigns responsibilities for approving new programmes;
monitors subsequent follow-up actions (such as of conditions of approval).
Overview of Procedure
A new programme must be formally approved before it can register students.
There are five stages in the formal Programme Approval Procedure:
Preliminary Review by the Chief Executive
Board of Directors Approval of Business Case
Proposal Development
Approval by Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel
Approval by Academic Council
This formal procedure may be preceded by informal review of a developing programme by the Chief Executive and Board of Directors, as well as initial external academic input and challenge through interviews, reviews, reports, and working groups with external academics, as well as initial scoping through focus groups and interviews with relevant stakeholders (e.g., students, employers).
Stage 1: Preliminary Review by the Chief Executive
Proposals relating to the approval or reapproval of a programme are made by the Director of Teaching and Learning. S/he will first meet with the Chief Executive to set out details of the programme including learning outcomes and delivery, and whether the programme overlaps with, replaces or continues existing educational provision.
The Chief Executive will consider the proposal and determine the extent to which it aligns with the School’s Mission, Strategic Plan and Academic Plan, and whether it is financially viable. Where the Chief Executive is satisfied that there is a case for further developing the proposal, the Director of Teaching and Learning will establish a Programme Development Team (PDT), led and staffed by relevant School faculty members. The PDT will be responsible for completing the required programme approval documentation. Where the Chief Executive does not agree that there is a case for further developing the proposal, s/he will reject it.
Stage 2: Board of Directors’ Approval of the Business Case
At an early stage in the development of the proposal, the Director of Teaching and Learning will present the business case to the Board of Directors for approval. The business case is the justification for the proposed new programme on the basis of its expected commercial benefit to the School. As such, the business case must set out the rationale for the programme, the target market, the viability of the market, envisaged student numbers, the delivery mechanisms of the programme, and the resources required to support it. The Board of Directors will:
Approve the business case for the proposal development to proceed; or
Refer the business case back to the Director of Teaching and Learning for further
development prior to approval; or
Reject the proposal.
Stage 3: Proposal Development
The Director of Teaching and Learning is responsible for monitoring the development of the proposal, assessing its viability and ensuring that the business case and any attendant risks receive continuing attention. The PDT must draw on research, available evidence, and the input of internal and external subject and resource experts, and the views of other relevant stakeholders, such as alumni, students and employers. It must ensure that it develops the programme in alignment with sector standards and benchmarks (including relevant Subject Benchmark Statements and standards set for comparator programmes in the sector, and quality frameworks, such as the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications.
The PDT must develop the following documents for submission to the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel:
• Programme Specification including:
o Name,credit,Levelandvolumeofstudy,includingexitawards;
o StructureofProgramme;
o Module,Level,andProgrammeintendedlearningoutcomesalignedtoan
o Name,credit,Levelandvolumeofstudy,includingexitawards;
o StructureofProgramme;
o Module,Level,andProgrammeintendedlearningoutcomesalignedtoan
assessment strategy and in accordance with Level and credit value; o Studentsupport;
o Criteriaforadmission;
o Mapofprogrammelearningoutcomestomodulecomponents;
o SeeAnnexAforatemplate.
o Criteriaforadmission;
o Mapofprogrammelearningoutcomestomodulecomponents;
o SeeAnnexAforatemplate.
• Learning outcomes matrix, which:
o MapstheprogrammelearningoutcomesforeachLevelagainsttheFHEQ
o Mapsthemodulelearningoutcomesagainsttheprogrammelearningoutcomes o Describesthethresholddescriptorsofeachprogrammelearningoutcomefor
o MapstheprogrammelearningoutcomesforeachLevelagainsttheFHEQ
o Mapsthemodulelearningoutcomesagainsttheprogrammelearningoutcomes o Describesthethresholddescriptorsofeachprogrammelearningoutcomefor
each Level of the programme; these threshold descriptors are aligned with
QAA’s Annex D: Outcome classification descriptions for FHEQ Level 6 degrees • Module Forms of component modules, including:
o Factualinformation(title,tutor,type,Level,creditvalue,modeofdelivery, notional learning hours);
o Rationaleandaims;
o Learningoutcomes;
o Indicativecontent;
o AssessmentStrategyandMethods; o Teachingstaffandkeyreadinglist; o SeeAnnexBforatemplate.
o Learningoutcomes;
o Indicativecontent;
o AssessmentStrategyandMethods; o Teachingstaffandkeyreadinglist; o SeeAnnexBforatemplate.
Governing Academic, Assessment and Classification Frameworks
Any other relevant information (e.g., learning resource plans, samples of rubrics and
assessment information)
Prior to the meeting of the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel, one or more External Scrutineers shall review the programme and constituent modules in detail. External Scrutineers are appropriate external experts who have been approved by the Director of Teaching and Learning. They are tasked with reviewing the programme and/or constituent modules in detail to assess the quality and standards of the programme/modules in line with sector benchmarks such as other relevant programmes and Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications. Annex C sets out the role of the External Scrutineer in greater detail. The External Scrutineer(s) shall either send a written report to Registrar ahead of the Panel meeting (which will then be shared with the Panel at least five working days before the meeting) and/or will attend the Panel meeting to provide an oral report on their findings, which shall be minuted.
Where the PDT is seeking programme re-approval, it must also prepare the following documents for submission to the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel:
Narrative description of the development of the programme;
Record of amendments made to the programme since the previous approval;
A critical review of the programme, including student and external examiner
feedback;
The Annual Programme Monitoring Reports for the previous two years.
The Director of Teaching and Learning shall consider the extent to which:
The Programme Specification and Module Forms meet the School’s requirements and are consistent with the School’s General Academic Regulations;
The standards and quality of the programme are appropriate to the level of qualification, in line with external benchmarks (relevant subject benchmarks, including Subject Benchmark Statements and the standards set for comparator programmes in the sector, and Quality Frameworks, such as the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications);
The programme design has taken into account the Strategic Plan and the Student Support Framework;
The programme is viable in terms of market demand and likely numbers of students, and whether the design of the programme will minimise revenue cannibalisation and maximise revenue;
The resources required to deliver the programme are reasonable, available and accessible;
The proposal addresses any staff development needs arising from the programme design, including steps to address these;
The place of the programme in the School’s portfolio.
The review of the programme approval materials by the Director of Teaching and Learning is iterative, and continues until the Director of Teaching and Learning determines that the proposal is sufficiently robust to be submitted to the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel.
Stage 4: Approval by Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel
On the recommendation of the Director of Teaching and Learning, the Academic Council will establish a Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel to consider the proposal.
The Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel: Membership and Terms of Reference sets out the Membership and Terms of Reference of the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel. As part of the School’s commitment to consulting external academic experts (see the
External Academic Expertise Framework), this Panel includes an External Advisor as well as an External Scrutineer (where the Scrutineer attends the Panel to give an oral report). The role of the External Advisor in relation to this Programme Approval Procedure is set out in Annex D.
The relevant submissions for the Panel specified in Stage 3 of the procedure must be provided to the Chair of the Panel at least five working days in advance of the Panel meeting.
As part of its deliberations, the Panel will meet with the PDT and the Director of Teaching and Learning. Where the Panel is considering a programme for reapproval, the Panel will also meet with current students of the programme.
The Panel is responsible for making a recommendation on whether or not a proposal should proceed.
In determining its recommendation, the Panel will answer the following questions:
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed programmes at Level 4 (Cert Ed), Level 5 (Dip Ed), Level 6 (BA Honours and Ordinary) correspond with the FHEQ?
Is Panel satisfied that the programmes (above) align with the LIS Academic Framework and regulations?
Is the Panel satisfied that the assessment strategy and process is robust and applicable?
Is the threshold standard of the Programme (BASc) comparable with programmes in the sector?
Is the Panel satisfied that the programme is coherent e.g. that there are clear routes for students taking optional modules?
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed teaching staff are appropriately qualified?
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed learning resources are fit for the proposed
programme?
Is the Panel satisfied that the Programme displays LIS's commitment to equity and
does not present unnecessary barriers to students with Specific Learning
Differences?
Are there any modules of serious concern (e.g. where module learning outcomes are
not aligned with the Programme Level outcomes)?
Where the proposal is for programme reapproval, the Panel will also consider
Evidence of the academic standards of the programme and component modules, and their consistency with sector standards (e.g., as set out in the FHEQ, Subject Benchmark Standards, or other relevant sector standards);
Any modifications in the design and/or delivery of the programme in response to student and external examiner feedback, as well as any recommendations from the Annual Programme Monitoring Reviews;
Steps taken to maintain the currency and validity of the programme.
The Panel will make a recommendation to the Academic Council; this will be either:
The Panel will make a recommendation to the Academic Council; this will be either:
Approval; or
Approval for a Specified Period (i.e., for a shorter period than the standard 5 years); or
Conditional Approval, depending on the fulfilment of requirements to the satisfaction
of the Panel by a specified date; or
Referral for Further Development by the PDT and Director of Teaching and Learning by
a specified date, after which the proposal can be resubmitted to the Panel; or
Non-Approval, where the Panel has significant reservations about whether the
programme complies with the stated criteria for programme approval.
Where the Panel approves the programme, or is satisfied that the programme has met the conditions of conditional approval, it will make its recommendations and report to the Academic Council.
Stage 5: Approval by Academic Council
The Academic Council will consider the recommendations of the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel. As is set out in the Academic Council Membership and Terms of Reference, in this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning shall cede the Chair of the Council, wherever possible to the independent member that did not chair the PMRAP, and where this is not possible, to the other independent member; the Director of Teaching and Learning shall also cede his/her voting rights. This is to ensure that the Director of Teaching and Learning is not “marking his/her own work”.
The Academic Council will either accept the Panel’s recommendation, or reject it, or ask that it be reconsidered along certain aspects. Once the Academic Council has made a decision, it will make report this decision to the Board of Directors.
Definitive programme documentation
Once approved via this Procedure, the Programme Specification and its Module Forms will form the definitive documentation for the Programme. It will be lodged with the Registrar and made available to students via the Learning Management System. All related documentation, such as prospectuses, Student Handbooks, the School website and other marketing information must be derived and updated in line with this definitive documentation and it must adhere to the legal requirements relating to the provision of information.
C. Module Approval Procedure
Introduction
Each new module must be formally approved before it can be included within a programme and offered to students.
Usually, new modules will be developed as part of a programme, and they will therefore be considered for approval under the Programme Approval Procedure (Section C above).
Where a module is developed separately from the programme in which it will be included, it must be approved using this Module Approval Procedure.
There are four stages in the Module Approval Procedure:
Preliminary Review by the Director of Teaching and Learning;
Proposal Development;
Approval by the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel;
Approval by the Academic Council.
Stage 1: Preliminary Review by the Director of Teaching and Learning
The proposer of the module will first meet with the Director of Teaching and Learning, outlining the reasons for the development of the module, the module’s learning outcomes and delivery, and whether it overlaps with, replaces or continues existing provision.
Where the Director of Teaching and Learning agrees that there is a case for pursuing the proposal, s/he will authorise it for internal marketing to current students. If the student demand for the module is at a sufficient level, the Director of Teaching and Learning will authorise the design and development of the module proposal, assigning resources as appropriate. Where the Director of Teaching and Learning does not consider that there is a case for pursuing the proposal, s/he will either reject or refer it back to the proposer for further development.
The Director of Teaching and Learning will inform the Academic Council of any proposals and related decisions.
Stage 2: Proposal Development
The Director of Teaching and Learning will supervise the development of the module proposal, giving due consideration to the development of its business case and the identification and mitigation of any risks. The proposer of the module must, in developing their proposal, draw on research, available evidence, and the input of internal and external academic experts, as well as consult with relevant stakeholders (alumni, students, employers).
When the Director of Teaching and Learning determines that the proposal is sufficiently detailed and robust, s/he will recommend the establishment of a Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel.
The Proposer must research and draft the module proposal, which will include:
The Module Form, providing the background to and rationale for the module, as well as the content, structure, delivery, and assessment (see Annex B)
The relevant Programme Specification for the programme in which the module will be offered
The mapping of the Module Learning outcomes to the Programme Learning Outcomes, which must be aligned to the FHEQ
A written report from an External Scrutineer of standing in the relevant subject whose appointment has been approved by the Director of Teaching and Learning (see Annex C)
Stage 3: Programme/Module Approval by Module Review and Approval Panel
On the recommendation of the Director of Teaching and Learning, the Academic Council will establish a Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel to consider the proposal.
Copies of papers for the Panel must be provided to the Chair of the Panel five working days in advance of the Panel meeting.
The Panel will meet with the Module proposer, any team members who have supported the development of the module, and the Director of Teaching and Learning.
In determining its recommendation on the proposal, the Panel answer the following question:
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed module corresponds with the appropriate Level of the FHEQ?
Is the Panel satisfied that the module aligns with the LIS Academic Framework and Academic Regulations?
Is the Panel satisfied that the assessment strategy and process is robust and applicable?
Is the threshold standard of the Module comparable with modules in the sector?
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed teaching staff are appropriately qualified?
Is the Panel satisfied that the proposed learning resources are fit for the proposed module?
Is the Panel satisfied that the Module displays the School’s to equity and does not present unnecessary barriers to students with Specific Learning Differences?
Does the Module align with the approved Programme Level outcomes?
Does the Module cohere with the overall programme?
Where the proposed Module is intended to replace an existing module, the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel will also consider:
The case for withdrawing the module to be replaced, including consideration of the safeguards for registered students;
Evidence on the standards of the module to be replaced;
Any modifications in the design and/or delivery of the existing module in response
to student and external examiner feedback, as well as any recommendations from
the Annual Programme Monitoring Reviews;
Steps taken to maintain the currency and validity of the module.
Following its consideration of the proposal, the Programme /Module Review and Approval Panel will make a recommendation to the Academic Council, which will be one of the following:
Approval; or
Approval for a Specified Period (I.e., for a shorter period than the remaining
approval of the programme of which the module is a part); or
Conditional Approval, depending on the fulfilment of requirements to the
satisfaction of the Panel by a specified date; or
Referral for Further Development by the module proposer and team and Director of
Teaching and Learning by a specified date, after which the proposal can be
resubmitted to the Panel; or
Non-Approval, where the Panel has important reservations about whether the
module complies with the stated criteria for module approval.
Where the Panel approves the programme, or is satisfied that the programme has satisfied the conditions of conditional approval, it will make its recommendations and report to the Academic Council.
Stage 4: Approval by the Academic Council
The Academic Council will either accept the Panel’s recommendation, or reject it, or ask that it be reconsidered along certain aspects. In this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning shall cede the Chair to the independent member of the Council who is not the chair of the PMRAP; the Director of Teaching and Learning will also cede his/her voting rights.
The Academic Council’s decision will be reported to the Board of Directors.
E. Modifications to Programmes and Modules Procedures
Introduction
This procedure applies to modifications to programmes and modules that have been approved by the School. Modifications may be major or minor.
The objective of this procedure is to encourage the School’s academic staff to continuously evolve and develop the School’s programme and modules, as well as to ensure that any changes are duly approved and appropriately introduced. This procedure seeks to strike a balance between ensuring that the School’s programme is continuously updated, whilst ensuring that the School honours its contractual agreement with its students, and protects student expectations. This procedure therefore takes a light-touch approach to
minor programme and module modifications, with greater oversight and control of major modifications.
Minor Modifications Requiring No Formal Approval
Where a modification to a programme or module does not change the programme/module specification, does not conflict with a relevant prospective entry, and does not affect
other programmes/modules, the modification is considered to be minor and requiring no formal approval. Such modifications to a programme can be undertaken at the discretion of the Director of Teaching and Learning; such modifications to a module can be made at the discretion of the module leader (who must inform the Director of Teaching and Learning of the change(s)).
other programmes/modules, the modification is considered to be minor and requiring no formal approval. Such modifications to a programme can be undertaken at the discretion of the Director of Teaching and Learning; such modifications to a module can be made at the discretion of the module leader (who must inform the Director of Teaching and Learning of the change(s)).
Minor Modifications Requiring Formal Approval
Minor modifications may carry implications for other modules, and may require changes to module and programme specifications, provided they do not constitute major modifications as described in the section below.
The Director of Teaching and Learning must evaluate the impact of the proposed modification on the programme/module, giving consideration to the change in the context of any previous changes (to establish the cumulative effect of changes). The Director of Teaching and Learning will then formally approve or reject any changes. Any adjustment of programme or module assessment must be considered in terms of the impact on registered students, and must be approved by the relevant Board(s) of Examiners.
The Director of Teaching and Learning must formally report to the Academic Council any change to a module or programme specification, and state how the change was agreed and approved.
The Academic Council must review the report, and either approve the minor modification or determine that the change requires further evaluation and under the procedure for major
modifications. In this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning will cede the Chair to the independent member; the Director of Teaching and Learning will also cede his/her voting rights.
The changes will made to the formal Programme Specification and Module Forms and the changes logged by the Registrar.
Major Modifications Requiring Formal Approval
Major modifications include:
Changes with major effects on registered students;
Changes with major effects on other programmes;
Changes affecting a prospectus applying to current students;
Changes with implications for the School’s regulatory framework by proposing
alterations to the Programme Specification relating to:
The title of the award;
The programme aims or intended learning outcomes;
The mandatory admission requirements;
The programme structure including core and elective modules and
progression requirements;
The programme assessment strategy and structure of boards of
examiners;
The programme regulations.
Where a major modification is proposed, the Director of Teaching and Learning will
consult with the Teaching and Learning team, the relevant External Examiner, and the Registrar (on the scope and impact of the change in relation to the School’s regulations and overall programme). The Registrar shall advise on whether, given the cumulative effect of previous changes, the proposed modification should be considered a major modification. Where the Teaching and Learning Director determines, following this consultation, that the proposal should be treated as a change with major effects, s/he will refer the changes for approval by the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel under the Module Approval Procedure.
consult with the Teaching and Learning team, the relevant External Examiner, and the Registrar (on the scope and impact of the change in relation to the School’s regulations and overall programme). The Registrar shall advise on whether, given the cumulative effect of previous changes, the proposed modification should be considered a major modification. Where the Teaching and Learning Director determines, following this consultation, that the proposal should be treated as a change with major effects, s/he will refer the changes for approval by the Programme/Module Review and Approval Panel under the Module Approval Procedure.
Where the modifications proposed are so extensive that the definitive programme document, and particularly the Programme Specification, require far-reaching revision, there must be a full programme validation and approval.
Timing and Notification of Changes
Modifications to modules and programmes will normally be initiated following the annual programme monitoring process.
The Director of Teaching and Learning, in consultation with the Registrar, must determine when changes to modules and programmes can appropriately come into effect. This will depend on the impact of the changes on registered students, and the extent to which they vary from the description of the programme provided to registered students at the time of their admission to the School.
Where there are changes to a programme which differ from the description of
the programme provided to registered students on their admission to the School, these students will be informed of the changes and their express consent to the changes must be sought. Where modifications are expected to significantly impact students, the School’s published Student Protection Plan must be followed. Changes made
to programme regulations affecting progression and assessment must only be introduced after consultation with the affected students. The outcome of the consultation must be confirmed in writing on the Learning Management System.
the programme provided to registered students on their admission to the School, these students will be informed of the changes and their express consent to the changes must be sought. Where modifications are expected to significantly impact students, the School’s published Student Protection Plan must be followed. Changes made
to programme regulations affecting progression and assessment must only be introduced after consultation with the affected students. The outcome of the consultation must be confirmed in writing on the Learning Management System.
F. Procedure for Programme Withdrawal
Introduction
Any withdrawal of a programme must be approved by the Academic Council and Board of Directors.
There are three stages in the Programme Withdrawal Procedure:
Preliminary Review by the Chief Executive;
Review by the Academic Council;
Approval by the Board of Directors.
Programme Viability
The following factors, either individually or in combination, will trigger consideration of whether a programme should be withdrawn:
The programme has either not been run, or has been suspended, for two academic years;
The student entry cohort is 20 students or fewer;
The progression rate from term-to-term is 50% or less.
Where any one of these factors arises, the Director of Teaching and Learning must notify the Chief Executive, with an evaluation of the extent to which the purposes, value and viability of the programme are at risk. The evaluation should include a statement from the relevant external examiner(s) and be supported by or contain recommendations from the Director of Admissions and Student Support and the Registrar. The Director of Teaching and
Learning should include an impact assessment of programme withdrawal, including effects on current students, as well as plans for safeguarding the awards of students affected, and how these align with the School’s published Student Protection Plan.
Stage 1: Preliminary Review by the Chief Executive
The Chief Executive will consider the assessment submitted by the Director of Teaching and Learning. Where s/he finds that there is a case for withdrawing the programme, s/he will give approval for the submission of a withdrawal proposal to the Academic Council.
The Chief Executive will report all cases and decisions to the Academic Council at the earliest opportunity.
Stage 2: Review by the Academic Council
The Director of Teaching and Learning will submit an application for programme withdrawal to the Academic Council for consideration, including a Programme Withdrawal Form (see Annex E) and a report on the current and past 5 years’ student enrolment on the Programme. In this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning will cede the Chair of the Academic Council to the independent member of the Council; the Director of Teaching and Learning will also cede voting rights on the matter.
In determining whether to withdraw a programme, the Academic Council will evaluate:
Whether the Programme Withdrawal Form presents sound reasons for the withdrawal of the programme, supported by sufficient evidence;
Whether the standards and quality of the School’s provision are compromised by the withdrawal of the programme;
The place of the programme in the School’s portfolio;
Whether the proposal upholds the School’s contractual obligations to students, and protects the expectations of students;
The extent to which withdrawal impacts associated areas of provision.
The Academic Council will either:
Approve the programme for withdrawal; or
Approve programme withdrawal for a Specified Period,
i.e., programme suspension for a specified period, after which continued
withdrawal would depend on further approval; or
Approve programme withdrawal subject to conditions, where the programme is
withdrawn or suspended depending on the fulfilment of specified requirements to
the satisfaction of the Academic Council by a particular date; or
Reject the proposal, where the Academic Council has significant reservations
about whether the proposal complies with the stated criteria for programme withdrawal.
The Academic Council will reach a decision and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Stage 3: Approval by the Board of Directors
The Board of Directors will consider the recommendation of the Academic Council and will make a decision on the proposed withdrawal of the programme. This decision will be reported to the Academic Council.
G. Module Withdrawal Procedure
Introduction
Any proposed withdrawal of a module must be approved before it can be removed from a programme or prospectus.
Normally, modules will be withdrawn as an outcome of a Programme Approval/Reapproval or following the introduction of a new module, and they will therefore be approved as part of the Programme Approval Procedure or the Module Approval Procedure.
Where a module is withdrawn and not replaced by a new module or programme, it must be approved in line with the following procedure:
Preliminary Review by the Director of Teaching and Learning;
Approval by the Academic Council.
Stage 1: Preliminary Review by the Director of Teaching and Learning
The proposer must submit an application for module withdrawal to the Director of Teaching and Learning, including a Module Withdrawal Form and a report on the current and past 5 years’ student enrolment on the module. The Module Withdrawal Form must include a statement from the relevant external examiner.
The Director of Teaching and Learning will consider the application, evaluating the extent to which the module withdrawal is financially viable, and fits with the Mission, Strategic Plan and Academic Plan of the School, and assessing the risks of withdrawal and actions to mitigate these risks.
Where the Director of Teaching and Learning is satisfied that there is a case for pursuing the proposal, s/he will authorise its submission to the Academic Council.
Where the Director of Teaching and Learning is not satisfied that there is a case for pursuing the proposal, s/he will either reject the proposal or refer it back to the proposer for further consideration.
Stage 2: Approval by the Academic Council
The Academic Council will consider the module withdrawal form together with the recommendations of the Director of Teaching and Learning. In this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning will cede the Chair of the Academic Council to the independent
member of the Council; the Director of Teaching and Learning will also cede voting rights on the matter. The Academic Council will evaluate:
Whether the Module Withdrawal Form presents sound reasons for the module withdrawal, supported by sufficient evidence;
Whether the standards and quality of the programme are adversely affected by the withdrawal of the module;
The place of the module in the relevant programme;
Whether the withdrawal of the module compromises students’ fair and reasonable
chance of achieving the academic standards required for successful completion of
the relevant programme;
Whether the proposal satisfies the School’s contractual obligations to students,
protects students’ expectations, and is consistent with the School’s published
Student Protection Plan;
Whether the module withdrawal will impact associated areas of provision, and how
the proposal intends to manage this. The Academic Council will either:
Approve the recommendation of the Director of Teaching and Learning; or,
Approve the recommendation of the Director of Teaching and Learning but with
conditions;
Reject the recommendation.
The Academic Council will report its decision to the Board of Directors.
H. Programme Monitoring Policy and Procedure
Overview
Annual Programme Review is the cornerstone of the quality assurance process. It gives the School the opportunity to reflect upon the teaching and operation of its programme(s), identify good practice which can be extended, and identify any issues requiring resolution. Regular monitoring and evaluation of programmes is used to drive the improvement and enhancement of the student academic experience.
Aims
The purpose of the Annual Programme Monitoring Procedure is to maintain and enhance the quality and standards of the School’s programme(s), specifically:
To review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment strategies of the programme and consider the planning of any consequent changes to modules and/or programmes;
To ensure that academic standards remain in line with sector benchmarks;
To ensure that any problems arising in a particular programme are report and steps
taken to resolve them;
The monitor and evaluate how student and staff feedback has been considered and
actioned;
To consider any relevant external comments on the wider aspects of the programme,
including those of External Examiners and regulators;
To identify any trends in student recruitment, progression and achievement,
particularly with respect to identifying where more can be done to support certain
groups of students in succeeding on the programme(s);
To report on any teaching and learning enhancements which might be rolled out
across the programme(s).
Principles
All programmes must be monitored annually in line with the Programme Monitoring Policy and Procedure.
The Director of Teaching and Learning is responsible for drafting an
Annual Programme Monitoring Report for each programme at the School, for review by the Academic Council.
Annual Programme Monitoring Report for each programme at the School, for review by the Academic Council.
Annual Programme Monitoring Reports must draw upon as wide a contribution as possible from staff. All staff must be given at least one week to consider and comment on an Annual Programme Monitoring Report before it is submitted to the Academic Council.
Approved Annual Programme Monitoring Reports must be made available to all members of staff.
Annual Programme Monitoring Reports
Annual Programme Monitoring Reports are important in upholding the maintenance of academic standards and in ensuring the continuous improvement of academic quality. They have a development focus and provide a management and reference tool for academic staff.
An Annual Programme Monitoring Report must be filled out in line with the Annual Programme
Monitoring
Review Form (Annex G) and must include:
Executive summary of the previous academic year;
Action plan for the next academic year, including success measures, timescale
and responsibility;
Report on actions taken following previous year’s Annual Programme Monitoring
Report;
Critical assessment of the currency and validity of programme and module
specifications;
Evidence-based evaluation of whether the programme meets its stated academic
standards, including consistency with the FHEQ, UK Quality Code for Higher Education, any relevant Subject Benchmark Statements or comparator programmes in the sector, and the School’s General Academic Regulations;
Assessment of the degree to which the programme and its constituent modules provide students with a fair and reasonable chance of achieving the academic standards required for successful completion;
Detailed analysis of staff and student feedback, how these were addressed and reported back;
Review of the admissions policy and admissions performance;
Evaluation of student recruitment, progression, retention and achievement for the
relevant year and compared with previous years, assessed against the School’s
Access and Participation targets;
Account of any significant changes to the resource base for the programme and
how these have been managed;
Analysis of external examiner feedback and description of responses to any issues
raised, with external examiner reports attached in an appendix;
Reports from external agencies such as the QAA and responses to any issues
raised;
Evidence-based commentary on the employability of graduates;
Outline of how the programme addresses equality, diversity and inclusion within
the curriculum;
Identification of good practice in the programme and how this could be extended,
and any other development and enhancement opportunities
The Academic Council will establish a timetable for submission dates for Annual Programme Monitoring Reports.
Approval by the Academic Council
Once the Director of Teaching and Learning is satisfied with the Annual Programme Monitoring Report, s/he will submit it to the Academic Council. The Academic Council will either approve the report for release, or it will refer it back to the Director of Teaching and Learning for amendment or review. In this discussion, the Director of Teaching and Learning will cede the Chair of the Academic Council an independent, external member, and will cede voting rights on the matter.
The Academic Council will also review the operation and effectiveness of the Annual Programme Monitoring Procedure on an annual basis.
I. Central, Summary Oversight of Programmes
A summary of quality processes for assuring academic quality and standards is set out in the School’s Quality Framework.
As set out in Audit, Finance and Remuneration Functions, internal audit across all School academic activities takes place through an annual programme of reviews and a five-yearly Rolling Internal Audit Programme, coordinated by the Registrar and overseen by the Audit and Compliance Committee. The Audit and Compliance Committee will also oversee an annul review of the Academic Council’s governance effectiveness and report any recommendations for improvements to the Academic Council (Audit, Finance and Remuneration Functions).
Academic Quality and Standards—Annual Reviews
As set out in its Membership and Terms of Reference, the Academic Council conducts annual academic quality and standards reviews through the following cycle of Annual Reviews:
The Annual Programme Monitoring Procedure (Section H above);
Review of a summary report on the outcomes and action plans from annual
programme monitoring;
Annual assessment of effectiveness of the Annual Programme Monitoring
Procedure;
Review of annual report submitted by the Director of Teaching and Learning on the
character of the academic community of the School, judged against the criteria set out in the OfS Regulatory Framework, including plans for staff development and enhancement;
Review of annual report submitted by the Director of Teaching and Learning on the scholarship and pedagogic effectiveness of learning staff;
Review of a summary report on the findings and action plans from external examiners;
Review of a summary report, submitted by the Director of Marketing and Recruitment, on student recruitment;
Review of a summary report, submitted by the Director of Admissions and Student Support, on School admissions;
Review of a summary report, submitted by the Director of Admissions and Student Support, the Head of Digital and the Director of Teaching and Learning, on the operation and monitoring of student services;
Review of a summary report, submitted by the Learning Resources and Property Working Group, on student facilities and resources;
Review of a summary report submitted by the Registrar on student complaints and appeals, including applicant complaints and appeals;
Review of major academic policies and regulations and their effectiveness, as set out in the academic regulations, policies and procedures.
These annual review reports must be compiled in line with the guidance set out in the School’s Quality Framework.
The Academic Council reports to the Board of Directors on the outcome of these annual reviews with a summary of the monitoring, maintenance and protection of academic standards; the quality of the student experience; the adequacy of the provision for the general welfare of students; and the School’s compliance with the School’s conditions of registration with the Office for Students.
Academic Quality and Standards—Termly Reviews
The Academic Council conducts termly reviews of student retention, attainment and progression statistics (provided by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee), as well as termly student feedback on modules (provided by faculty) and student support (provided by the Student Support Department). It determines actions to address emerging issues.
Monitoring and Review of Policies and Procedures
The Director of Teaching and Learning, in consultation with the Registrar, will review these policies and procedures and their effectiveness on an annual basis, and any changes will be authorised by the Academic Council.
At Spikey U we are fully committed to deliver products and services of assured quality to our customers. The three pillars of our business are Collaboration, Quality and Delivery. Form our experience we know that mutual trust and respect, transparency and extra support are necessarily for Efficient Collaboration. Spikey U Delivery Unit is dedicated to support efficient collaboration.
The Quality starts with our Quality Management System certified and the quality audit is integral part of everything we do. We benefit greatly from our staff experience and expertise but when it is justified we use external reputable consultancy or sub-contractor. The Quality aboard is dedicated to ensure the we have market intelligence, individual expertise and provide professional development to deliver services and products of consistently high quality within given constraints including but not limited to financial constraints.
The Delivery is essential for our success, the Head of Spikey DU is IBM certified Enterprise Design Thinking Practitioner, has yet to find time to open the research titled ‘outstanding teaching: teaching backwards’ but fully focused on delivery The Teaching For Robust Understanding Framework, implementing zero trust approach by IBM to ensure we have the right infrastructure and the state of art hardware(Mac Book Pros, Mac Mini Or iPads powered by M1 or A12 Bionic chip), the state of art software the Creative Cloud All Apps including 5 web sites hosted for free by Adobe and Zoom pro licence, and the state of art development JotForms Enterprise platform to enjoy scalable both holistic and assured quality solutions delivery powered by synergy.
Spikey U, Specialist Maths School for responsible learners of all abilities, backgrounds and ages to master Maths of their choice when they are ready, says The Head of Spikey U, Dr. Inna Vasileva.
Spikey U is School of Business for Digital Era powered by Theory Of Active System by Dr. Vladimir Burkov and founded by students of Professor Sergey Barkalov, Professor Alexander Baev, Professor Boris Sadovsky. a student and co-author of a famous mathematician, Dr. Mark Krasnoselskij, says The Head of Spikeyn DU, Dr. Vladimir Portnyh.
Fun Facts
Inna and Vladimir know each other since 1991 when they shared the same desk in The College Number One learning to understand mathematics. Inna is brilliant and in 1993 she was awarded the Gold Medal for academic achievements but Vladimir nearly lost his Silver Medal at the same graduation ceremony. Inna has completed her research thesis to be awarded Ph.D in Mathematics and Science. Vladimir trusted his mom to collect his Ph.D diploma on this occasion and his degree appears to be equivalent to Ph.D. in Computer sciences(Australia) or Ph.D. in Finance (EU) but he says it is in Mathematical Modelling of Assured Quality or TAS by Vladimir. It appears that name Vladimir enables active creativity, Vladimir Lenin and Vladimir Zelenskij are known for their creativity on a state scale.
The Challenge: £1000
Can you identify the authors of the following two famous quotes suggested by Inna and Vladimir:
‘Мастерство решения математических задач на означает что вы понимаете математику»
«Самая сложная задача в мире это убедить своих коллег в том что они свободны, и они могли бы в этом убедиться сами если бы уделили этому совсем немного времени. Почему это так тяжело?»
For a chance to double up and get £2000 you need to identify correctly for each quote above if Inna or Vladimir submitted it.
Spikey U Quality Management System
.
Spikey U Quality Policy.
Spikey U Title Page Policy
Spikey U Business Plan
Spikey U
Spikey U Quality Audit Register
Spikey U Privacy Policy
Spikey U Code of Ethical Conduct
Spikey U Control Of Documented Information Policy
Spikey DU Documentation Register
Spikey U Business Ground Rules
Spikey U Business Assessment Procedure and Risk Management Policy.
Spikey U The Role of Internal verifier, The Vice Chair
Spikey U The Role of External verifier: The Chair
Spikey U Equal Opportunities and Diversity Policy
Spikey U Reasonable Adjustment and Special Consideration Policy
Spikey U Quality Audit Policy and Feedback Procedure
Spikey U Fees and Invoicing Policy
Spikey U Appeals Policy
Spikey U Complaints Policy
Spikey U Recognition of Prior Learning Policy
Spikey U Learner Induction Policy
Spikey U Flexible Assessment Policy
Spikey U External Assessment and Invigilation Requirements
Spikey U Individual Learner’s Record Register
Spikey U Customer Services and Products Quality Audit Register
Spikey U Product Development Request Policy
Spikey U Supplier Selection Procedure
Spikey U External Sub Contractor Policy
Spikey U Sub Contractor Quality Audit Policy
Spikey U Procedure for the Approval of New Service or Product including Assessment Materials.
Spikey U Procedures for the Security of Assessment Materials
Spikey U Process for Managing the Withdrawal of Approval
Spikey U Malpractice and Maladministration Policy
Spikey U Conflicts of Interest Policy
Spikey U Interested Parties and Business Requirements Register
Spikey U Staff Requirements, Competence, CPD and Current Vacancies Register
Spikey U Staff Induction, Performance Evaluation and End of Service Policy
Spikey U Contracts and Terms of Reference Register
Spikey U Resources Register
