Title: Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme or Module Board Decisions, Report for 2005

Origin: Chris Dunbobbin, Assistant Registrar, Student Office

1. Analysis of Appeals

An analysis of appeals is provided in Appendices I-IV.

1.1 Number of Appeals (Appendix I)

A total of 134 appeals were submitted in 2005, ten fewer than in 2004. This small decrease may be attributable to the introduction of new regulations on condonement. A large proportion of appeals are submitted by students who fail by a relatively narrow margin and it is likely, therefore, that many of those who were allowed to progress or graduate as a result of condonement might otherwise have appealed.

1.2 Incidence of Appeals Against Total Population* (Appendix II)

The 134 appeals submitted represented 0.8% of the total population, a similar proportion as in 2003 and 2004. The profile of appellants broadly matched that of the total population, and given the relatively small number of appeals, care should be taken not to overstate relatively minor differences between the characteristics of the appellant population, and those of the total student population. Data are provided by Department as well as aggregated for the University, for information. However, given the small number of students involved in each department, it is again difficult to draw any strong conclusions from the figures.

1.3 Appeal Outcomes (Appendix III)

Three quarters (74.6%) of appeals were dismissed at the first stage of the appeals process, by the Academic Registrar, and a further 8.2% were dismissed by a Dean. 17.2% of appeals were upheld by a Dean. No appeals were referred to the Academic Appeals Committee.

The most common reasons for the dismissal of appeals were lack of evidence, and late disclosure of impaired performance (IP) for which good cause was not established. The majority of successful appeals related to IP where the student was able to establish good cause for not submitting a timely claim, with a small number involving procedural irregularities. In relation to the former category, sensitive personal circumstances and mental health difficulties were treated sympathetically.

Appendices III and IV contain further analysis of appeal outcomes in the context of the characteristics and owning department of appellants. Again, however, relatively small numbers are involved, and care must be taken not to overstate minor differences.

2. Issues Arising from the Consideration of Appeals

2.1 Confidentiality of Impaired Performance Submissions

In a number of cases, appellants referred to concerns about the extent to which information submitted in an IP submission would be treated confidentially as a reason for not submitting a claim at the appropriate time. It is therefore proposed that the University’s ‘Policy and Procedures on Impaired Performance’ is amended to specifically state: (a) that IP submissions will be dealt with in confidence, as far as possible, taking into account the need for the appropriate staff to consider the circumstances described, and (b) that concerns of this kind will not normally be taken to constitute good cause for not submitting a timely IP claim.

2.2 Confirmation of Receipt of Impaired Performance Forms and/or Supporting Evidence

In a small number of cases, appellants claimed to have submitted an IP form to the Student Records and Examinations Office (SR&EO), and/or supporting documentation to their department, but no record of their claims/documentation existed. In the absence of any other evidence (eg. proof of posting), this presented a difficult situation because giving appellants the benefit of the doubt would be likely to encourage other unsubstantiated, speculative claims, while dismissing the appeal raised the possibility of an injustice in the unlikely event of a form and/or item of supporting evidence being mislaid by the University. The introduction of a receipt system would provide certainty in this area, but consideration would need to given as to whether the additional work in administering receipts was warranted by the small numbers of this kind of appeal.

* Note on Total Population

The total student population for the purposes of this report includes all students who had the opportunity to appeal against a Module/Review or Programme board decision in 2005.

· For undergraduates, the total population includes students considered by a Programme Board in the Summer, and those considered by a Programme Board following the Special Assessment Period (SAP). Those students who were considered by Programme Boards in both Summer and SAP were double-counted, as they could have appealed against the decisions of both Boards.

· For postgraduates, the total population includes all students who were considered by at least one Module/Review or Programme Board during the year.