Present: Rick Trainor (Chair) Christine Rose (Secretary)

the

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF 2004 OF ACADEMIC COUNCIL, HELD ON WEDNESDAY 3RD MARCH 2004 IN ROOM 063, QUEEN ANNE COURT, MARITIME GREENWICH CAMPUS AT 2.15PM

Present: Rick Trainor (Chair) Christine Rose (Secretary)

Thomas Acton Denis Heathcote

Liz Bacon John Humphreys

Peter Burt Jane Longmore

David Chambers Clare Mackie

Christine Couper Ken Marsh

Linda Cording Kashif Mahmood

Mark Cross Tony Mann

Mohammad Dastbaz Liz Meerabeau

Amanda Davidson Trinh Nguyen

Francis Duke Margaret Noble

Ndy Ekere Christine Rose

Faiez Garbash Zeljko Sevic

Sue Golding David Wills

Robert Young

In

attendance: Wendy Cealey Harrison Dai Hall

Christine Couper Alan Reed

Clara Hall (minute taker) Suzanna Stein

Dai Hall

APOLOGIES: Peter Dalton Les Johnson

Gavin Farmer Inderdeep Kang

Richard Hayward John Orchard

Aine Hurst Guy Poulter

David Isaac Mike Sharp

ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR

04.2.1 New Procedures for Professors and Readers. At a previous meeting of
Council a number of changes to the new procedure to award titles to Professors and Readers had been approved subject to suggested amendments an input from Court and its Staffing and General Committee. A further redraft had subsequently been circulated electronically to Council and had now been implemented. was proposed.

Council approved the Chair’s suggestion that for 2004 the Committee include, in addition to those already approved, one new internal member (Professor Pat Harvey, School of Science) and two continuing external members, Professor Adrian Smith of Queen Mary College London, and Professor Graham Upton of Oxford Brookes University.

04.2.2  HE Bill. This has passed the second reading and is now in committee stage. The vote on the third reading is expected in March. The CMU and other pressure group are divided in their views, but are generally supportive of the Bill as it is expected to generate extra resources for universities and seems less unfair to post-92 universities than the version discussed in the autumn.

The University needs to be ready if the Bill is passed and is intending a limited consultancy to advise on variable fees for full time home undergraduates. In order to be prepared the University will need to make decisions regarding fees by Christmas 2004 at the latest in order to put the fee levels in the prospectus (for 2006 entry) which will be published in spring 2005.

04.2.3 HEIF 2. The bid application has been submitted consisting of £2.2 million of core bids and £1.2 million in 5 collaborative bids. Results should be released in May.

04.2.4 Search for New Vice Chancellor. The first round of interviews have already taken place, and the 4 shortlisted applicants will be considered by the interview panel on the 10th March.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

04.2.5  Annual Recurrent Grant Letter from HEFCE for 2004-05. A detailed

analysis of the contents is being undertaken. In contrast to recent years, the University has done better than most universities in terms of percentage increase compared to 2003-04. However, there are difficulties in comparing like with like.

The Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic Planning) announced that a request submitted to HEFCE to develop Foundations Degrees has been accepted, and Dr Margaret Noble, the Head of DECS, was congratulated on the strength of the bid. In addition to student places, an £81,000 development fund will be awarded. The outcome will be an increase in numbers of 207 FTE in 2004/5 and additional numbers for the next 5 years. This allows for very positive growth. It was acknowledged by COUNCIL that this would be a challenge for the University to recruit the additional numbers at this stage, but that there would be no risk from failure for the core contract.

04.2.6. Royal Pharmaceutical Society. It is understood that the Society has accredited the new programme within the School of Pharmacy in collaboration with the University of Kent. The School will be recruiting students for September 2004.

04.2.7 Research Assessment Exercise. Changes have been made to the Research Assessment Exercise. It means that the University will be able to submit on the basis of those individuals who are research active, on a ‘star’ system in which excellence will receive at least some reward whatever the level of performance of the unit as a whole. In the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise a total of £8 billion will be available for distribution over the following 6 or 7 years.

MINUTES

04.2.8 The Summary Minutes of COUNCIL held on 21 January 2004 were amended
as follows:

·  Following a request from a member of COUNCIL the words “see saw effect” were withdrawn from para 1 pg 6 of the Minutes.

Subject to the above correction the Minutes of the previous meeting of
COUNCIL were agreed as an accurate record.

MATTERS ARISING

04.2.9 (i) Minute 04.1.18 Structure of the Academic Year: The Director of
Student Affairs reported that the three term schedule document has
been widely circulated, including to Partner Colleges, and is now on
the Web. Further discussion of exceptional arrangements had taken
place at the Learning and Quality Committee and meetings are being
set up with Heads of School to look at the detail of implementation.

04.2.10 (ii ) Minute 04.1.20 Amendments to the Regulations Governing
Suspected Plagiarism and Exams Offences: The Director of
Student Affairs updated COUNCIL. The Standards Officer is in
discussion with the Schools for their input regarding increasing the
power of the first investigative interview stage. The intention is to put
the proposals back to the School for discussion before they are
presented to COUNCIL.

04.2.11 (iii) It was noted that Paul Stigant had now been appointed Chair of the Health and Social Care Review.

MEMBERSHIP/TERMS OF REFERENCE

04.2.12 (i) It was reported that the intention is to standardise the Terms of
Reference for University Committees to remove any inconsistencies,

overlap or confusion. The amended Terms of Reference for

Committees were agreed.

04.2.13 (ii) The Research Degrees Committee Terms of Reference have been
further modified. It was agreed that COUNCIL should

approve these Terms of Reference now, and that if changes are

recommended following general circulation these amendments should be returned to COUNCIL.

04.2.14 (iii) Concern was expressed regarding the Academic Planning Committee
Membership, and the opportunity to have on the Committee either or

both Heads of School/ Directors of Learning and Quality.

It was agreed that this would be resolved at the Learning and Quality Committee.

PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR AUDIT

04.2.15 The Student Written Statement has now been submitted. On

8th March it would be known which audit trails were to be pursued.

The intention is to work with the 4 schools selected to help them

produce their Self Evaluation Documents.

The Institutional Audit is on track, but there is also a need to prepare for the Collaborative Audit which will probably take place in late spring of 2005.

04.2.16  It was noted that the School of Health and Social Care are having a major QAA Review in Spring 2005. It was thought that this would be completed before the Collaborative Audit takes place.

RISK REGISTER:ACADEMIC RISKS

04.2.17 The Funding Council require a systematic approach to ‘Risk analysis’; this includes ‘academic risks’ which will now be considered through internal audits. A starting point has been an audit of Academic Council, to assure that it is carrying out its functions effectively. The internal auditors have carried out interviews and a draft response by the internal auditors has been made. It will be discussed at the next meeting of COUNCIL.

04.2.18 The University is responsible to HEFCE for implementing a risk register. The risk rating is calculated by relating the impact and the likelihood of the risk. It was agreed by the Executive Committee that a risk with a high ‘residual risk’ score and total score of 15 should be reported to COUNCIL.
It was noted that two of the risks on the register relate specifically to academic risk – Risk 5, ‘Inability to provide staff with support to improve the quality and impact of research’, and Risk 8, ‘Changes in the Student Experience leading to loss of reputation/poor retention’. It was noted that these had residual risks of 9 and 6 respectively. Regular monitoring by COUNCIL is not necessary at this stage.

04.2.19 It was generally agreed that the University’s internal processes already take risks into consideration.

The paper was noted by COUNCIL.

ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK

04.2.20 (a) UNDERGRADUATE REGULATIONS

(i) A working party had been considering the University’s Undergraduate Regulations with a view to making them clearer and removing any inconsistencies. It was intended to present the current updated version to COUNCIL for consideration to be applied at the summer exams. They have been out for consultation (via the web) for several weeks.

04.2.21 (ii) The benefits of maintaining 2 sets of Regulations,
Undergraduate and Postgraduate, rather than one integrated set
was discussed.

04.2.22 (iii) Some significant changes were highlighted. Students can now
obtain a pass degree with an average of 35-39%, rather than 40% as previously. If a student now fails and retrieves a course they can carry a maximum of 40% not 35%. COUNCIL recommended that compensated students should not be penalised. The issue of compensation and condonement needed further consideration.

04.2.23 (iv) The Head of the School of Pharmacy announced that the new
regulations for the Pharmacy Joint Programme would soon be
ready for submission to COUNCIL to be accommodated by the
main regulations.

04.2.24 (v) It was requested that a commentary of the changes should be
produced for use at PABs. The Secretary to COUNCIL will
produce such a commentary.
COUNCIL requested that the regulations for a pass degree and

compensation and condonement should be further considered.

Apart from these two aspects, the regulations were endorsed.

04.2.25 (b) APPEAL PROCEDURES

(i) Point 2, page 78 of COUNCIL papers were corrected to read
‘Assessment Offences Panel’, not ‘Subject Assessment Panel’.

In a vote, COUNCIL agreed to one minor modification - that
the decision made by the Standards Officer to grant or refuse an
appeal hearing should be made in consultation with the
Director of Student Affairs. This would demonstrate to students that the decision to grant or refuse an appeal was being
made by more than one person; and it would also give the

Standards Officer some protection.

COUNCIL endorsed the appeal procedures.

KEY QUALITY ASSURANCE FUNCTIONS/ ARCHIVING
POLICY

04.2.26 (c) COUNCIL endorsed the updated Academic Framework Document,
‘Authoritative Location for Key Quality Assurance Documentation,
Assessment Artefacts and Student Records.’
04.2.27(d) COUNCIL also endorsed the Key Principles of the Archive Policy.
04.2.28 (e) COUNCIL further agreed the duration of record retention and that
enquiries regarding study/awards older than ten years should be limited
to the provision of a transcript and/or duplicate award certificate.
It was also noted that there was a requirement for an audit of
documentation presently held in storage.

REPORTS ON VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARPD’S

04.2.29 A systematic approach to dissemination of aspects of the ARPDs to

appropriate Committees has been developed. COUNCIL considered the summary views of the processes.

04.2.30 (a) Collaborative Provision: COUNCIL had a substantive discussion on Academic Collaboration Committee’s summary of collaborative provision. In general terms it was noted that the quality, rigour and coverage of the ARPD reports was generally satisfactory. It was noted that ACC had requested monitoring information for several programmes that had been omitted. COUNCIL considered the cross-School issues, points made in relation to full cost partnership and endorsed the points of commendation. COUNCIL noted that the specific concerns (the PCET Network of Linked Colleges, improved access to Banner for Partner Colleges and additional partner college cohort data) were to be tackled through an action plan. In particular, the Chair of ACC would be involved in discussion of some of the corporate issues with the Head of DECS and the PVC (Academic Planning), the Learning and Quality Office would create a college-by-college matrix of concerns in order to identify any potential risk to quality and standards and the Partnership Adviser would produce an analysis of commonalities and differences in the School perspective (presented in the School ARPDs) and the Partner College perspective (as reflected in the College Annual Institutional Reports). COUNCIL expressed confidence in the action plan.

04.2.31 (b) Quality and Standards: There was substantial discussion of this section of the ARPDs reflecting the discussions of the Learning and Quality Committee. COUNCIL noted that the introduction and use of a standardised format had ensured that the required areas for coverage in the report have been addressed across all Schools. Schools have been able to consider statistical indicators in their own forums with summaries provided to the Learning and Quality Committee for its February meeting. COUNCIL considered the variations in practice relating to course monitoring, and the production of departmental reports. All Schools produced action plans based on the previous year’s annual monitoring. COUNCIL considered the number of new courses approved this year, newly authorised programmes and Schools’ Programme Review Process, and visits from External Agencies. COUNCIL endorsed the information on the detailed consideration of External Examiner Reports.

Schools have produced a number of action points to respond to issues of concern and common issues across the Schools in relation to teaching and learning include: further use of WebCT, the provision of skills workshops and support as part of the Student Experience Initiative, local approaches to student evaluation, and use of evidence from the Student Satisfaction Surveys. A particular action point for the Learning and Quality Committee was a review of the Quality and Standards Template within the ARPD for next year. COUNCIL commended the clear analysis provided within this report from the Learning and Quality Committee.

04.2.32 (c) Portfolio Planning: COUNCIL noted that this section of the
ARPD was considered through the Portfolio Working Group. The report recommended that in future Schools make use of the template provided for this section. It was noted that 53 programmes were planned and had been authorised (of which 27 were undergraduate and 26 were postgraduate,), 25 programmes had been proposed for closure and 11 programmes had been discontinued in the previous year. A breakdown of issues relating to each School was considered. COUNCIL concluded that it would be helpful in future for the report to draw out common themes and to ensure that consideration is given to forward planning.(This area is dealt with through the Strategy section of the ARPD).