PROGRAMME APPROVAL HANDBOOK Process Guide for the approval of new and modified taught academic programmes leading to University and external

Transcription

1 PROGRAMME APPROVAL HANDBOOK Process Guide for the approval of new and modified taught academic programmes leading to University and external awards Issued by the Standards and Enhancement Office July 2016, modified September 2017

2 1

3 PREFACE This handbook is intended to provide detailed information about the University's requirements for the approval of new academic programmes and of modifications to existing academic programmes. It covers all types of Programme Approval activity for taught programmes leading to qualifications of the University and external bodies, including those delivered off-campus. From September 2016 there are two routes to validation, as follows: A. Route A is where a proposal is considered by the University Standing Panel, at one of its scheduled meetings on the academic calendar B. Route B is where a proposal is considered by a specially convened Validation Panel For proposals about new or modified on campus programmes only: Route A is the standard route, normally Route B is chosen by exception, normally For proposals about new or modified off campus programmes: Route A is chosen by exception, normally Route B is the standard route, normally For proposals about new or modified on campus programmes that include and off campus franchise arrangement: Route A of Route B may be chosen, as required to manage, mitigate or monitor risk associated with the proposal The material in this handbook is organised as follows: that which is common to Routes A and B that which is specific to Route A only that which is specific to Route B only The appendices contain detailed information, protocols/ procedures, guidelines, templates. Mandatory Items are marked with an asterisk. For ease of use, the Appendices to this handbook are available as individual files on the Standards and Enhancement Office webpages labelled Programme Design and Approval/ Programme Approval Handbook ( Questions about the operation of the Academic Approval and/or Programme Approval can be addressed to members of the Standards and Enhancement Office (SEO), see Appendix 2. Academic Registrar 2

4 3

5 CONTENTS Page Introduction 6 Choice of Validation Route 6 Chart 1. Programme approval process at a glance 8 Programme approval process common steps for all proposals 12 Route A: University Standing Panel 18 Route B: Validation Panel 20 APPENDICES Available for downloading as separate documents from SEO s Programme Approval webpage Appendix 1: Timelines for Programme Approval/ Validation in a) Strategic Approval, Academic Approval and Programme Approval b) Timelines for the University Standing Panels/ Validation Events in Appendix 2: Key contacts in the Standards and Enhancement Office and the Student Data Management team Appendix 3: Arrangements for Strategic Approval and Academic Approval (Step 1) Appendix 4: Link to Modification of Taught Programme Guidelines Appendix 5: Validation criteria a) Generic approval criteria for on and off campus programmes b) Specific approval criteria for collaborative partnerships (off campus and some on campus) Appendix 6: Proposal Development Record (PDR) (Steps 3 9) a) Required contents of the PDR b) Guidelines for Preparing a Programme Specification c) Guidelines for Preparing a Module Specification d) Guidelines on the required contents of a Programme Handbook Appendix 7: University Standing Panel (USP) - Route A (Steps 12-16) a) Terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panel b) Roles and responsibilities of members of the University Standing Panel c) Generic agenda for a meeting of the University Standing Panel d) Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form e) Template for the USP Report Appendix 8: Validation Panel - Route B: (Steps 12-18) a) Terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panel b) Responsibilities of members of a Validation Panel c) Generic schedule for a Validation Event d) Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form 4

6 e) Template for the Summary Report f) Template for the Report Appendix 9: Generic Agenda for the Planning Meeting (Step 2) Appendix 10: External Advisor (Step 1-2) a) Expectations and responsibilities of the role of External Advisor and/or PSRB representative(s) b) Criteria for the appointment of an External Advisor for advice during programme development c) Nomination form for the appointment of an External Advisor for advice during programme development d) Template for the Consultation Report from the External Advisor and/or PSRB representative(s) e) Payment of fees and expenses to an External Advisor for advice during programme development Appendix 11: Internal Advisor (Step2) a) Expectations and responsibilities of the role of Internal Advisor b) Internal Advisor s Consultation Report Appendix 12: Programme Design and Development Meeting (Step 4) a) Generic Agenda b) Outcomes Appendix 13: University requirements (Step 4) a) Curriculum Design Guide containing Curriculum Philosophy and Graduate Attributes Matrix for Employability b) Guidance on how to achieve and embed the Teaching Intensive, Research Informed (TIRI) Curriculum Appendix 14: Consultation with employers, professionals and students a) Report template for consultation with employers (Step 5) b) Report template for consultation with students (Step 6) Appendix 15: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for External Scrutiny Meeting (Step 7) Appendix 16: External Scrutiny Meeting (Step 8) a) Generic Agenda b) Template for Report on Outcomes of External Scrutiny Meeting (Checklist for modification of draft programme documents) Appendix 17: Template for School to confirm that documents are ready for University level consideration (Step 9) Appendix 18: PDR Review Meeting (Step 10) a) Generic Agenda for the PDR Review Meeting b) Template for Report on Outcomes of PDR Review Appendix 19: SEO Secretary s Report (Step 11) 5

7 Introduction All proposed new programmes of study and proposed modifications to existing programmes are required to gain Academic Approval and Programme Approval (Appendices 2 and 3) before they begin. Where a programme either requires significant investment in resources or is intended for off campus delivery, then it is required to gain Strategic Approval before being submitted for Academic Approval (Appendix 3) All proposed modifications to programmes that are delivered on campus, which have an offcampus version that is delivered by a partner organisation under a franchise agreement, must be made simultaneously. This is to ensure that the franchise version of a programme remains identical to the version taught on campus at the University. Strategic Approval is the formal process by which the University s Strategic Planning and Resources Development Committee (SPRDC) gives permission for the development of any of the following proposals: New partner organisations New programmes with a new or existing partner organisation Significant changes to the nature and academic level of provision with an existing partner organization (e.g. a change in from research to taught programmes; a change from HE levels 4-6 to HE levels 7-8) Developments that require significant investment in learning resources including staff Academic Approval is the formal process by which the University s Programmes Committee gives permission for the development of any of the following proposals: New programmes for on campus delivery Major modifications to an existing programme, for example changes to the programme and/or module learning outcomes, programme title, programme structure and assessment. This includes both on campus and off campus programmes. Programme Approval is the formal process by which the University s Senate gives permission that a programme may be offered for study by students. The Programme Approval process includes validation that a proposed new or changed programme meets the University s expectations of academic standards, quality and information. SEO manages the process and submits the outcome of this quality assurance process as a recommendation to the Senate, for ratification. Senate is responsible for the information about and the academic standards and quality of all programmes that lead to a University qualification. Where relevant the validation process will consider the requirements of any relevant Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies and external awarding bodies/organisations. Programme Approval relies on peer review by approved University staff and student reviewers as well as external advisors (subject specialists) and reviewers. Approved programmes will normally operate in accordance with University regulations, unless otherwise stated. The University s approval arrangements, as outlined above, are aligned with the HEFCE Baseline Regulatory Requirements. Choice of Validation route There are two possible routes to validation, as shown in Chart 1, below, and as follows: 1. Route A: the standard route is through an iterative process of development that ends with consideration of a Proposal Development Record (Appendix 6) at a meeting of the 6

8 University Standing Panel (Appendix 7); 2. Route B: is the standard route for Off Campus programmes and by exception for on campus programmes. It uses an iterative process of development and consideration by a Validation Panel (Appendix 8) held at the intended location of delivery. The Planning Meeting will determine the validation route (STEP 2, Appendix 9), which is subject to confirmation by SEO after the proposing team submits the final set of documents, (STEP 11). The choice of validation route will reflect the level of complexity of a proposal and/or the arrangements required for effective validation. Factors to be considered include: Location of programme delivery Involvement of an off-campus partner organisation The level of experience in programme design amongst members of the subject team making the proposal The number of pathways and complexity of the proposal Whether the proposal is in a new or an existing subject area Any requirements for learning resources which are subject to confirmation The involvement and preferred approach of a PSRB The completeness of the Proposal Development Record (PDR) (Appendix 6) at Step 10 in the process, as shown below. The arrangements for Academic Approval and Programme Approval take account of QAA s Quality Code for Higher Education (UKQC or the Quality Code, see ) and the European Standards and Guidelines,

9 Chart 1. Programme approval process at a glance 8

10 Chart 1. Programme approval process at a glance Common initial steps for all proposals STEP 1: Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee. Proposer submits External Advisor nomination for approval by Programmes Committee. Proposing team identify own training needs. STEP 2: Planning Meeting SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and organises Planning Meeting at which Validation Route is selected. Administrative set-up occurs. STEP 3: SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints External Advisor. STEP 4: Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AGC consult SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes. SEO Advisor arranges any required training on programme design and development. STEP 5: Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR. STEP 6: Proposing team write draft programme documents. Team capture student views about Programme Specification and upload report to PDR. STEP 7: School Sign Off Meeting School staff proof read and check programme documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of programme documents. STEP 8: External Scrutiny Meeting Proposing team & AGC present proposal to Internal Advisor, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) in person/ by teleconference, +/- SEO Advisor. SEO Secretary attends to record outcomes and follow up action and modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be finalised. STEP 9: School to Sign-Off PDR Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and complete the PDR. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of PDR STEP 10: PDR Review Meeting Proposer presents completed documents to SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and SEO Secretary who either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team. STEP 11: Secretary's Overview Report SEO Secretary writes an overview report on design and development of the proposal. 9

11 Validation Route A (standard for on campus and by exception for off campus programmes) Validation Route B (standard for off campus and by exception for on campus programmes) STEP 12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record STEP 12: Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to Proposing Team. STEP 13: USP decides whether or not to recommend validation of the proposal to Senate. STEP 13: Validation Event held at intended delivery location STEP 14 A: Where USP decides to recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folder For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to the USP to enable sign-off. STEP 14: Secretary generates Reports which are submitted to Education Committee and Senate STEP 15: Proposer completes follow up action on any conditions and recommendations STEP 14 B: If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP. STEP 15: If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and submits it to Education Committee and Senate STEP 16: Proposer submits revised programme documents to PDR-folder and alerts Secretary STEP 17: Validation Panel Chair considers response to any conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off STEP 16: Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment. STEP 18: Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment. 10

12 11

13 Programme approval process Common steps for all proposals STEP No. Activity Description Appendix Step 1 Proposal secures Strategic Approval (if required) from Once the proposal has been discussed at subject level and/or with the partner organisation, the proposer needs to secure University approval to proceed. SPRDC and Academic Approval from Programmes Committee. Proposer submits External Advisor nomination for approval The relevant forms can be obtained from the SEO website and submitted to the Secretary of the Committee, (Appendices 2 and 3) and include: Appendices 2 and 3 by Programmes Committee. For SPRDC, proposer completes the Strategic Approval Form (SAF) Proposing team identify own For Programmes Committee, proposer completes the Programme Approval training needs. Form (PAF) or Change Approval Form (CAF) and the External Advisor Nomination Form (Appendix 10) When completing the PAF, the proposing team must be identified with their training needs for programme approval. Appendix 10 Step 2 SEO Secretary to recruit Internal Advisor and organises Planning Meeting. Administrative set-up. Once a proposal gains approval to proceed, SEO will assign a Secretary to the proposal. The Proposer contacts the SEO Secretary for the following details: Name of Internal Advisor. See role description in Appendix 11 Date and time of the Planning Meeting, which is attended by key participants and at which the detailed planning occurs. See typical agenda in Appendix 9. Programme Code and the creation of a blank Programme Specification template in the Programme Database. The Proposer contacts the SEO Secretary for the Programme Code. (Appendix 2) See programme specification details in Appendix 6. The Proposer contacts a member of Student Data Management (SDM) (Appendix 2) for 12 Appendix 11 Appendix 9 Appendix 2 Appendix 6

14 Step 3 SEO Secretary sets up the Proposal Development Record (PDR) and appoints approved External Advisor Step 4 Programme Design & Development Meeting Proposing team with AGC consult SEO Advisor and Internal Advisor about academic standards, programme aims and learning outcomes. SEO Advisor arranges any required training on programme design and development the Module Codes and the creation of a blank Module Specification templates in the Module Database. See module specification details in Appendix 6. The Proposer contacts the SEO Secretary for the following details: The Proposal Development Record (PDR) on Moodle - see required contents in Appendix 6. The Proposal Development Record (PDR) is a virtual folder that contains evidence of the design, development and validation of a programme. Access is given to key participants in the process to enable them to submit items of evidence to the folder. The contents of the PDR-folder will comprise the formal record of the process of design, development and consultation - including all final programme documents. The contents of the PDR are reviewed at the: Step 4: Programme Design and Development Meeting Step 7: School Sign-Off Meeting Step 8: External Scrutiny Meeting Step 11: PDR Review Meeting Step 12: University Standing Panel or Validation Panel Once the programme is approved, the access rights to the folder will be restricted to members of SEO and the PDR will become the definitive set of programme documents. The Proposer convenes a meeting of the proposing team and AGC with the SEO Advisor (to be nominated during the Planning Meeting) and Internal Advisor. The meeting provides guidance on programme design, consultation and development, as follows: Design-Consult-Develop: Programme design, consultation and development Alignment with the HEFCE Baseline Regulatory Requirements including the UK Quality Code for Higher Education Parts A, B and C University regulations 13 Appendix 6 Appendix 6

15 Setting academic standards, designing a good quality student experience and ensuring that information for students is clear and accurate Securing the views of students, employers and any relevant PSRBs Securing the views of any related partner organisation(s) Taking account of any relevant Apprenticeship Standard Writing the module specifications and programme specification. Step 5 Proposing team consult employers (e.g. Industry Advisory Panel) PRSB with outline of proposed new or modified programme and uploads completed report to PDR. Meeting the University requirements: The Curriculum Philosophy (Appendix 13a) Graduate Attributes Matrix for Employability (Appendix 13a) Operational aspects of programme design, consultation and development How to build in alignment with the University s TIRI agenda (Appendix 13b) How to reflect the requirements of the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy and the Student Experience Strategy How to ensure the proposal addresses the University s enhancement priorities. Writing the Programme documents and the Process documents for the PDR (Appendix 6) The Proposer notifies the SEO Advisor about the training needs amongst members of the programme/ proposing team. The SEO Advisor arranges bespoke training for the team members. The University requires that programmes are developed in accordance with the views of: Employers/ professionals e.g. members of the Industry Advisory Panel for each School (Appendix 14a) Any relevant Professional Statutory, Regulatory Body (PSRB) (Appendix 14a) The Trailblazer Group for any relevant Apprenticeship Standard (Appendix 14a) Appendix 13a Appendix 13b Appendix 6 Appendix 14a 14

16 Step 6 Proposing team write draft programme documents. Team capture student views about Programme Specification and upload report to PDR Partner organisation(s) that plan to offer the programme. During design and development of a programme proposal, one or more meeting(s) should be held to capture comments from employers / professionals and any relevant PSRB, and partner organisations, respectively. The responsibility for convening such meetings rests with the School/ Division. The intention of the consultation is to capture views about the proposed new or modified programme and the following documentation should provide a basis for evaluation of the programme proposal: Draft marketing information (course leaflet/ prospectus entry) Draft programme specification. This is a formal requirement and the outcomes of the meetings should be formally recorded, in report templates or notes, as follows: Consultation with employers and professionals (Appendix 14a) Evidence of engagement with any partner organisation(s) that plan to offer the programme (for example, notes of meetings). The record(s) should be placed by the Proposer in the PDR-folder as part of the Process Documents. The Programme Proposer completes a first draft version of: Programme specification(s) (PDF from the database) Module specification(s) (PDF from the database) The Programme Proposer and team produce: The Programme Handbook (Appendix 6d) any required Placement Handbook and Mentoring Handbook, following the University templates Detailed information about specialist Learning Resources including staff CVs Marketing materials following University guidance For Partnership provision: Off Campus Operations Manual, following the University template. The University requires that programmes are developed in consultation with students. During development of a programme proposal, one or more meetings should be held to capture comments from students. The Appendix 6d 15

17 Step 7 School Sign-Off Meeting School staff proof read and check programme documents. Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) confirms readiness of programme documents. Step 8 External Scrutiny Meeting: Proposing team with AGC present proposal to: Internal Advisor, SEO Secretary, External Advisor/PRSB representative(s) in person/ by teleconference, +/- SEO Advisor. SEO Secretary records outcomes and follow up action and modifications required to enable documents in PDR to be finalised. responsibility for convening such meetings rests with the School/ Division. The intention is to capture views about the proposed new or modified programme as presented in the programme specification and module specifications. This is a formal requirement and the outcomes of the meeting(s) should be recorded using the template provided for this purpose in Appendix 14b. The completed template should be uploaded to the Proposal Development Record. Appendix 14b The Proposer and AGC arrange for staff in the School, who are not on the proposing team, to proof read the programme documents and make any required changes to documents The documents are modified in line with advice from the proof readers. Once documents are ready, the Proposer convenes a meeting at which the Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) review the revised documents and signs off their readiness for the External Scrutiny Meeting. (Appendix 15) Appendix 15 The Proposer convenes the External Scrutiny Meeting at which the draft programme proposal should be presented. The meeting is chaired by the Internal Advisor, and a draft agenda is available (Appendix 16a). NB: the Appendix 16a meeting requires access to an overhead projector in order that it can work visually through the documents in the PDR, as required. The intention is to capture subject specialist advice on the proposed new or modified programme using the following documents: Programme Specification Programme Handbook Module Specifications for all modules Staff CVs and module/ leadership responsibilities Marketing information (Programme leaflet/ prospectus entry) Mentoring/ placement handbooks, as relevant Operational Manuals, for off-campus programmes, as relevant Curriculum mapping, where relevant, e.g. for progression or articulation of programmes. How the programme meets any PSRB accreditation requirements The proposing team consults the External Advisor/PSRB representative for subject specialist advice, which includes: 16

18 subject standards in PSRB requirements; QAA s Subject Benchmark Statements and any relevant Characteristics Statements; and the External Advisor s knowledge of good practice in the subject area; any subject specific legislative and regulatory requirements. Consulting the approved External Advisor or PSRB representative is a formal requirement and the External Advisor is asked to complete a formal report summarising his/her view of the suitability of the proposal and any recommendations for modification of the proposal and/or programme documents using the report template in Appendix 10b. The External Advisor is paid a fee and expenses (claims for the fee and expenses should be submitted to the SEO Secretary, who supplies a claim form for the purpose, see Appendix 10e. Appendix 10b Appendix 10e Step 9 Proposing team use report from External Scrutiny Meeting to finalise programme documents and complete the Proposal Development Record (PDR). School to Sign-Off PDR and upload report. Step 10 Step 11 PDR Review Meeting Proposer (development lead), SEO Advisor, Internal Advisor and SEO Secretary review PDR and either confirm progression to Route A or B or return the proposal to the proposing team The SEO Secretary completes the SEO Secretary s Report and submits it to the PDR The SEO Secretary attends the meeting and records the outcomes and required follow-up action and modifications to enable PDR documents to be finalised (Appendix 16b) Proposing team modify programme documentation in accordance with the advice provided at the External Scrutiny Meeting. Appendix 16b Once documents are ready, the Proposer convenes a meeting at which the Head of School or nominee (e.g. AGC) review the revised documents and signs off their readiness for the University level consideration. (Appendix 17) Appendix 17 The Proposer presents the final versions of the programme documents in the PDR. The meeting either confirms that the proposal can progress to validation by Route A or B or returns it to the appropriate earlier step in the process, above. Appendix 18 SEO Secretary either adds the proposal to the agenda for the University Standing Panel or continues to arrange a Validation Event. SEO Secretary writes an overview report on the design and development of the proposal and the completeness of the PDR (Appendix 19). Appendix 19 17

19 Route A University Standing Panel STEP No. Activity Appendix Step 12 University Standing Panel (USP) considers complete Proposal Development Record. The terms of reference and membership of the University Standing Panel are given in Appendix 7a. The USP is to confirm that due process has been followed in the programme development. Appendix 7a The date and location of meetings of the University Standing Panel are given in the annual Senate Committee Calendar that is published on the SEO webpage for Committees. The dates for meetings of the University Standing Panel that are correct at September 2017 are included in Appendix 1b. The University Standing Panel ONLY considers programme proposals with a complete Proposal Development Record that has been confirmed as ready for validation at the PDR Review Meeting. Appendix 1b The USP Secretary provides members of the University Standing Panel with access to the PDR containing the relevant documents for consideration by the USP. Prior to the meeting of the University Standing Panel, members review the Proposal Development Record. Step 13 USP decides whether or not to recommend validation of the proposal to Senate. The USP determines whether: due process has been followed; suitable action has been taken in relation to any recommendations from, students, employers, the profession, a PSRB, the Internal and External Advisors and SEO; a complete and acceptable set of final programme documents has been produced; the programme is ready for recruitment and delivery; to recommend to Senate that the proposed programme be validated. Members of the USP determine the nature of the recommendation to be made to Senate about validation of the proposal. A Report is produced by the USP Secretary (see Appendix 7e). 18

20 Step 14A Step 14B Step 15 Step 16 Where USP decides to recommend validation, the Chair of USP signs off the programme and the PDR-folder For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to the USP to enable sign-off. If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation, the proposal is returned to the appropriate previous STEP. If validation is recommended, USP Secretary completes the USP Report and submits it to Education Committee and Senate Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment Where USP decides to recommend validation of the proposal (normally without any conditions or recommendations) the Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form (see Appendix 7d) at the conclusion of the event. For off-campus provision, the USP confirms that the Annex to the written agreement has been signed by the head of the partner organisation, prior to being signed for the University. If USP chooses NOT to recommend validation of the proposal, then it will return the proposal to the appropriate previous STEP. In such cases, the Proposer will be notified about the reasons for the proposal having been returned and asked to complete specified action. USP Secretary completes the USP Report (see Appendix 7e). Education Committee is invited to consider and endorse the USP Report under delegated authority from Senate. Senate is invited to accept and approve the USP Report. SEO Secretary adds the USP report to the PDR, which becomes the definitive record of programme documentation (at this point write-access to the PDR is then restricted to SEO). For off-campus provision, the Annex to the written agreement is signed for the University. The SEO Secretary activates the programme(s) on SITs after receipt of the completed Programme Approval and Sign Off Form, (Appendix 7d); and, for off-campus provision, the signed Annex to the written agreement. ONLY THEN can students be recruited and commence to study the programme(s). If either document is missing, the provision is designated subject to validation (STV) on SITs and the programme cannot commence. The SEO Secretary activates the programme in SITS, by removing STV and sends out the SRL. This action will activate the web-based course database that is used for marketing the programme(s). Appendix 7e Appendix 7d Appendix 7e Appendix 7d The approval period for a programme is normally five years, unless otherwise stated, or until the next Internal Subject Review (ISR). 19

21 Route B Validation Panel STEP No. Activity Appendix Step 12 Validation Panel reviews PDR and submits lines of enquiry to Secretary. Lines of enquiry sent to Proposing Team The terms of reference and membership of the Validation Panel are given in Appendix 8a. The SEO Secretary will convene a Validation Panel and arrange an event in accordance with decisions taken at the Planning Meeting (Step 2). Appendix 8a The SEO Secretary provides members of the Panel with access to the PDRfolder containing the Proposal Development Record, to enable members to scrutinise the proposal and generate lines of enquiry. The SEO Secretary, in conjunction with the Chair of the Panel, collates the lines of inquiry and any requests for evidence. The Secretary sends them to the Proposing team for information and action with a copy to the Panel. This is very important in ensuring the transparency of the process and is intended to enable the proposing team to prepare for the Event. Step 13 Validation Event held at intended delivery location The Programme Proposer is invited to share lines of inquiry with the programme team and to submit any required further evidence by an agreed date in advance of the Validation Event. The Validation Event is held at the delivery location to enable the Panel to meet staff, students and employers to consider the proposal in detail. The event will normally include a tour of any relevant specialist learning resources, and/or premises at which learning will take place. A sample schedule for a Validation Event is given in Appendix 8c and the precise details for a given event will be agreed at the Planning Meeting (see Planning Meeting Notes). Appendix 8c If the Panel decides to recommend approval of the provision, without conditions and recommendations, the Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form at the conclusion of the event (see Appendix 8d Programme Approval and Sign-Off Form). For proposals that involve a partner organisation, the Annex to the formal Appendix 8d 20

22 written agreement, which describes the provision, should be signed at the conclusion of the event by the head of the partner organisation. If the Panel decides to recommend approval of the provision, with conditions and recommendations, a date is set for completion of the necessary action. Step 14 Secretary generates Reports which are submitted to Education Committee and Senate A Summary Report is produced by the SEO Secretary indicating the outcomes of the event (see Appendix 8e Template for Summary Report). A Full Report is produced by the SEO Secretary (see Appendix 8f Template for Report). Education Committee is invited to consider and endorse the Full Report under delegated authority from Senate. Appendix 8e Appendix 8f Step 15 Step 16 Step 17 Step 18 Proposer completes follow up action on any conditions and recommendations Proposer submits revised programme documents to PDRfolder and alerts Secretary Validation Panel Chair considers response to any conditions and recommendations. For Off Campus programmes the relevant addendum to the contract must be available to enable sign-off. Validated programme signed-off and set-up on SITs ready for recruitment Senate is invited to accept and approve the outcomes of the Summary Programme Approval Event in the Summary Report. Proposer and team complete any required action on conditions and recommendations and provide evidence of meeting such conditions and recommendations. The Proposer submits the revised documents to the PDR folder by the designated date and alerts the SEO Secretary. If the Chair confirms that the required action has been completed satisfactorily, the proposal proceeds to Step 17, if not, the proposal is returned to the appropriate earlier step. The Chair signs the Programme Approval and Sign Off Form, then submits it to the SEO Secretary (SEO). In this situation, when the provision is collaborative, the Annex to the formal written agreement, which describes the provision, should be signed by the head of the partner organisation. 21

23 On receipt of the completed Programme Approval and Sign Off Form and for collaborative provision, the signed Annex, the SEO Secretary activates the programme(s) on SITs and ONLY THEN can students be recruited and commence to study the programme(s). If either document is missing, the provision remains subject to validation on SITs and the programme cannot commence. In order to activate the programme in SITS, the SEO Secretary removes STV and sends out the SRL. The approval period for a programme is normally five years, unless otherwise stated, or until the next Internal Subject Review (ISR). 22

24 23

25 PROGRAMME APPROVAL HANDBOOK Policy ref: tbc Version number 03 Version date August 2016, updated September 2017 Role of Developer/ Reviewer Academic Registrar Policy Owner (Group/ Centre/Unit) Standards and Enhancement Office Person responsible for implementation (post- Academic Registrar holder) Approving Committee/ Board Education Committee Date approved 8 June 2016; Effective from September 2016 Dissemination method (e.g. website) SEO web pages; staff development sessions; Review frequency Annual updating Reviewing Committee Consultation history (individuals/groups consulted and dates) Document history (e.g. rationale and dates of previous amendments) Education Committee From September 2014 to present Programme Proposers and Panels have piloted the revised approaches on a developmental basis. Updated June 2016 for September 2016 to introduce validation by University Standing Panel on the basis of an externally verified proposal development record. Updated January 2016 to refresh previous guidelines and to align processes with The Quality Code. First approved by the Academic Board/ Academic Quality and Development Committee, January Modified: March 2009, October