LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
[Secretary to complete: PAPER NUMBER]
[Secretary to complete: OPEN / CONFIDENTIAL]
[PARENT BODY]
Academic Board
11 July 2011
Academic Principles and Regulations – Proposed Changes
(Sections A3, A4, B2, B3, B8, C9, C12 and E)
REPORT SUMMARY
Summary
The report summarizes proposed changes to the Academic Principles and
Regulations to maintain our regulatory framework. The proposed changes have been
informed by changes to the Quality Assurance Agency Code of Practice, changes to
our processes and procedures to support strategic developments and changes in
sector practice. There are also some minor changes proposed as points of accuracy.
Recommendation
Academic Board is asked to approve the proposed changes to the Academic
Principles and Regulations.
Appendices
Appendix A – Proposed changes to the Academic Principles and Regulations
AUTHOR
Name
Kirsty Sutherland
Job title
Head of Group – Quality, Standards, Review and Enhancement
Email address
k.sutherland@leedsmet.ac.uk
‘Phone number
Ext. 23973
APPROVAL OF REPORT
Approved by
Steve Denton, Registrar and Secretary
Approval date
VC’s Group date
n/a
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
Academic Principles and Regulations – Proposed Changes
(Sections A3, A4, B2, B3, B8, C9, C12 and E)
Introduction
The proposed changes to our Academic Principles and Regulations have been
informed by changes to the Quality Assurance Agency Code of Practice, changes to
our processes and procedures to support strategic developments and changes in
sector practice. In addition there are also proposals to support points of accuracy.
The wording of the proposed changes may be found at appendix A.
Summary of proposed Changes
The main proposals for change are:
Section A
a) To change to the planned duration of foundation degrees to align with sector
practice.
Section B2
a) To amend the regulations for approval to support re-focussing of the
undergraduate curriculum
b) Approval to be undertaken by a group of peers rather than a panel
c) Duration of approval to be extended to 6 years to allow for a staggered
approach to periodic review across years 4-6 in the following review cycle
and every 6 years thereafter
d) Formal requirement for an Advisory Group to be removed as this function will
be incorporated into the proposed developmental approach to course
approval
e) Development Team to be replaced by a Development Group consisting of
wider membership including students and external peers
f) Minimum expectations for approval documentation specified
g) Approval Group will not be permitted to set Conditions and
Recommendations
h) One re-submission of approval documentation will be permitted
i) All Members of an approval group must agree to approve the proposal,
unresolved disagreements will be referred to Academic Board
j) The entitlement to convene a process of academic approval appropriate to
the nature and complexity of the proposal will be retained to accommodate
approvals which fall outside the refocusing of the undergraduate curriculum
and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body requirements.
k) An outcome report will be prepared for Faculty Board and its committees and
Quality, Standards and Regulations Committee
Document1
Section B3
a) To amend the regulations for periodic review to support re-focussing of the
undergraduate curriculum
b) Periodic review to be undertaken by a group of peers rather than a panel
c) A staggered approach to periodic review to be adopted across years 4-6 in
the following review cycle and every 6 years thereafter
d) Membership of the periodic review group to be extended to accommodate a
developmental approach to review including students and external peers
e) Minimum expectations for periodic review documentation specified
f) Periodic review group will not be permitted to set conditions and
recommendations
g) One re-submission of periodic review documentation will be permitted
h) All Members of the periodic review group must agree to approve the
proposal, unresolved disagreements will be referred to Academic Board
i) The entitlement to convene a process of periodic review appropriate to the
nature and complexity of the proposal will be retained to accommodate
periodic reviews which fall outside the refocusing of the undergraduate
curriculum and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body requirements.
j) An outcome report will be prepared for Faculty Board and its committees and
Quality, Standards and Regulations Committee
Section C
a) To amend the tariff used by the Unfair Practice Board to apply a cap of 40%
to re-assessment following a first offence as the usual penalty.
Section E
A review of section E has been undertaken to map our regulations to the Quality
Assurance Agency’s revised Code of Practice, section 2.
a) Terminology updated to reflect ‘quality of learning opportunities’ rather than
‘quality of learning experience’
b) Clarification of responsibilities to include credit as well as awards of our
university.
c) Addition of regulation governing accreditation requirements
d) Addition of regulation outlining prerequisite requirements for accreditation
e) Addition of regulations outlining faculties responsibilities for approving and
reviewing accreditation
2
Conclusions and recommendations
Academic Board is asked to approve the proposed changes to the Academic
Principles and Regulations.
References and further information
Current Academic Principles and Regulations
http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/prs/index_academic_regulations.htm
Quality Assurance Agency Code of Practice
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/default.asp
3
Formattting
[The standard font for reports, is Calibri 12pt. Headings and sub-headings will be
printed in Calibri Bold, 12 – 14 pt.}
[Each paragraph of a report should be numbered sequentially from the start to the
end of the report. Sections should not be numbered to preserve a simple sequence
of numbers (i.e.: 1, 2, 3 … instead of 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 etc.).]
[Sub-paragraphs should be indented and numbered (a), (b), (c) etc. The level below
should be further indented and numbered (i), (ii), (iii), etc.]
4