Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Subject: Procedure for handling Programme Proposals

Origin: Unconfirmed Minutes of Learning and Teaching Committee on 5 June 2003

1. LUSAD, MA in Art and Design (Studio Practice) – new programme proposals

It was suggested that new programme proposals should be accompanied by a module by module summary (on a single side of A4) of the assessment requirements, which would show up any inconsistencies between modules in terms of the assessment tasks required and the student effort associated with them. It was agreed that there should be a limit on the time allowed to elapse between obtaining strategic approval for a programme proposal and the submission of the operational detail. These matters were referred to CSC for further consideration.

2. Procedure for handling Programme Proposals

Members of the Committee expressed concern that Curriculum Sub-Committee had asked it in effect to carry out the scrutiny of new programme proposals that it had been too late for CSC to undertake itself. There had been discussion about the approval process after a similar experience at the end of the previous session but no solution had been found. The difficulty was the need to put proposals through the CSC/LTC/Senate cycle of meetings, which effectively dictated that all new proposals had to be ready for submission to CSC by the beginning of May if they were to be approved in time for introduction in the following session, and that any slippage resulted in the proposal being stalled for a whole year. There was therefore pressure to clear up any outstanding issues while there was still time to seek LTC and Senate approval. The Chair of CSC suggested that one possible course of action would be to hold a fourth meeting of CSC, on an ‘if required’ basis, shortly before the summer LTC, solely for the purpose of clearing up outstanding business from the third meeting. The paperwork passing from CSC to LTC could be minimal. It was agreed that this should be tried in 2003/04.

The question was also raised whether CSC was seeking too much detail and whether this added unduly to the length and complexity of the approval process. It was agreed this should be kept under review and it was noted that the Audit Steering Group had already identified a need to look again at the position in respect of programme specifications with a view to providing further guidance.

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – October 2003