Validation Events and Panels

APPENDIX PV7a

Validation Events and Panels

Membership

Where consideration of a proposal is to be undertaken at a dedicated validation event conducted by a validation panel on behalf of AQSC the composition of the Panel shall be determined by the Head of Regulations and Complianceand shallnormally be as follows:

• Chair, a member of AQSC or Senate or other senior member of staff of the University;
• Two members of the academic or professional services staff, at least one of whom should be from another Faculty or froma partner institution which is a structural partner of the University;
• At least one current student, recent graduate or Students’ Union representative;
• Oneexternal member with expertise in the subject area under consideration, normally the external adviser nominated by the Faculty (where the external adviser is not a current or recently retired member of the academic staff at another UK university, then a second external member who meets these criteria must be appointed);
• Officer, a member of staff from the Academic Office, who shall also be responsible for setting the schedule for the event and for producing the panel’s report in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 4.

Where the proposal involves a partner institution, at least one of the internal members and the external member must have experience of collaborative provision (or an additional external member must be appointed).

Terms of Reference

At the validation event, the Panel is responsible for reviewing the documentation to ensure that:

• The documentation adheres to the University’s requirements in terms of presentation and content

It is expected that the general presentation, format and content (in terms of required sections) will have been checked by University officers at the first stage and any omissions identified, but (depending on when the first stage draft was seen) there may be some issues outstanding for the Panel to identify.

• The documentation has been considered by relevant University officers and any significant issues raised have been resolved;

The University officers are likely to have raised a range of different issues for consideration by the Programme Team. Where issues are those for further consideration or enhancement, the Panel should expect to see evidence that they have been given full consideration by the Programme Team, even where (as might sometimes be the case) they have not led to amendment of the proposed programme.

• There has been appropriate consultation with external persons, students and other stakeholders, and their views have informed the preparation of the final draft of the Programme Document;

The external adviser (who will normally be a member of the Panel) is likely to have raised a range of subject-specific and general issues and the Panel should expect to see evidence that all comments have been given detailed consideration by the Programme Team, even where (as might sometimes be the case) they have not led to amendment of the proposed programme.

The written summary of the first stage process produced by the Dean of Faculty (Appendix PV16) must include confirmation of the ways in which the Programme Team has sought to obtain the views of students and other stakeholders on the design of the programme.

• The Panel should give detailed consideration to programme content and may raise academic issues that have not been raised previously at the first stage as appropriate.

It is expected that the Panel will spend sufficient time on considering programme content and in working through the documentation in detail, in addition to considering whether or not the first stage process has been completed satisfactorily.

Following deliberation, the Panel will make one of the following recommendations to AQSC:

• That the documentation can be approved, subject to any conditions and/or recommendations which are deemed appropriate. The full details of the necessary conditions and/or recommendations will be provided. The Programme Team will be responsible for implementing the conditions and/or recommendations and revising the documentation as appropriate.

The Panel should make this recommendation when it is satisfied that the first stage process has been conducted thoroughly, and that all significant issues raised during the first stage have been addressed[1].The Panel may set conditions and/or recommendations as follows:

Conditions – should be set only in relation to matters which, if not addressed, will render the programme undeliverable. Conditions must normally be met in full before final approval can be conferred (see paragraph 4.3.14 of Chapter 4 of the Academic Quality Handbook 2017/18). It also is acceptable to set a general condition relating to further editing/updating/proofing of the documentation, since this must be completed prior to the admission of students.In some cases, conditions may be of a longer-term nature which cannot by their nature be met until delivery has commenced. These are referred to as ‘operating conditions’ and when they are set it will usually be stipulated that they are reviewed at the programme’s first annual review. The Panel may not impose resource-related conditions.[2]

Recommendations – are matters which the Programme Team is required to formally consider but may decide not to take forward(see paragraph 4.3.15 of Chapter 4 of the Academic Quality Handbook 2017/18). Recommendations for consideration by the University may also be made.

The Chair of AQSC (or nominee) is responsible for confirming that any conditions have been met.

• That the documentation cannot be approved in its current form, but should be significantly revised by the Programme Team in accordance with advice offered by the Panel and re-presented for consideration at a reconvened meeting of the Panel.

The Panel should make this recommendation when it is not satisfied that the first stage process has been conducted thoroughly and/or where there are significant issues raised during the first stage that have not been addressed. In such cases, no conditions or recommendations are set: The Panel’s comments take the form of advice to the Programme Team. At the reconvened meeting, the Panel will be asked to consider the revised programme documentation in full.

• That the documentation is considered so seriously deficient that it cannot be validated to the original timetable. In such cases the relevant Dean of Faculty will be asked to withdraw the proposal and to work with the Programme Team on the development of revised proposals to a new timetable. Such proposals will be subject to first stage validation prior to submission to a new Validation Panel.

The Panel should make this recommendation when it is not satisfied that the first stage process has been conducted thoroughly and where there are significant issues raised during the first stage that have not been addressed. The issues raised will be of such substance that it is unlikely that they can be resolved swiftly.

Where appropriate, the Panel may also commend a Programme Team for the quality of the documentation submitted, for innovation in programme design, and/or for performance in the validation event.

A Validation Panel Report, summarising the discussions of the Panel and clearly setting out the recommendation of the Panel (including details of any conditions or recommendations) will be produced by the relevant officer and submitted to the next meeting of AQSC for consideration. AQSC will consider the report and determine whether the recommendations of the Panel should be approved. AQSC may introduce additional conditions and/or recommendations as appropriate (see paragraph 4.3.3 of Chapter 4 of the Academic Quality Handbook 2017/18).

October 2017

[1]Significant issues are those which are likely to have bearing on the academic quality and/or academic standards of the programme.

[2]Scrutiny of the human and physical resources required for the programme’s delivery are not part of the validation procedure, but are considered by SMT as part of the initial approval process. However, where a Validation Panel has serious concerns regarding resources, it may make a recommendation that resources be given further consideration by the University.