Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Assessment flexibility policy for elite athletes

Origin: Programme Quality Team

The Programme Quality Team at its meeting on 20 October 2008 considered a draft policy [attached, without the pro forma that were included for PQ Team]. The policy was intended to introduce greater consistency and equity into the treatment of student athletes. It recognised and would preserve the integrity of Loughborough degrees. It would require students to be proactive in the management of their commitments and responsibilities, both sporting and academic. It had been discussed with the Academic Registry which welcomed the introduction of a formal policy.

The definition of the performance standard set out in section 4.1 and the associated footnote was noted. It was noted that Wednesday afternoon examinations in Semester 1 caused problems for some Loughborough students participating in BUCS team competitions, but it was accepted that it would swamp the system to include BUCS in the performance standard.

It was agreed that the policy should not normally be used repeatedly for the same student athlete. The stretched degree would be the more appropriate option for students who were likely to need to avail themselves of it on several occasions.

It was emphasised that for examinations, the preferred option was that students defer their first attempt to the SAP. It was considered important that it was made clear to students choosing this course of action that if they subsequently failed the examination in the SAP, there would be no opportunity to retake the examination before the next academic year. This caution should be added to the policy and the application form.

In the case of coursework, students would normally be expected to manage their time in order to complete their assignments within the deadlines. The exceptions would be where an assignment was set with a very short deadline (eg submission within a week), or the assignment could not be completed before certain resources or information had been provided and this also resulted in it having to be carried out on a short timescale, or where there was an in-class test involved. In these circumstances, flexibility in relation to deadlines or timing would be requested.

It was felt the Personal Tutor was not always the most appropriate person below the HOD to be asked to comment on the application, and suggested that this be changed to the HOD’s nominee to provide flexibility.

Subject to the minor adjustments suggested above, it was resolved to recommend the policy to Learning and Teaching Committee for adoption with immediate effect.

It was recommended that the implementation of the policy, and in particular the consistency of departmental support for applications, be monitored through the collection and presentation of data on an annual basis.