Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Report of Curriculum Sub-Committee – Matters for Information

Origin Unconfirmed Minutes of the Meeting on 16 October 2009

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held 16 October 2009.

1. Minute 09/19 – Programme Specifications

The revised Guide to the Preparation of Programme Specifications for adoption forthwith for proposals for new programmes and major programme changes, and for Programme Specifications submitted for Periodic Programme Review, were received. These were felt to represent a considerable step forward in providing guidance to departments and Jan Tennant was thanked for her significant input. The advice that would be given by Faculty Quality Enhancement Officers to programme proposers in producing Programme Specifications was also welcomed, and together with the revised guidelines was expected to ease the work of the Sub-Committee when scrutinising new programme proposals. It was suggested that the guidelines could be made more inclusive of LUSAD’s 100% coursework and other teaching methods and environment and it was AGREED that Phil Sawdon provide the relevant text prior to the guidelines being made available on the website. Learning and Teaching Committee was to be alerted to the relevant web-link.

2. Effectiveness of the Sub-Committee

.1 At the request of Audit Committee, members considered the effectiveness of the Sub-Committee. Members’ were content that the Sub-Committee’s purpose was understood, being clearly stated in the Terms of Reference. Meetings were well attended by members, but it was felt that to expedite business in future programme proposers should attend only when the AD(T) felt unable to respond to matters in a proposal, not when a proposer requested attendance.

.2 The Sub-Committee identified three factors that affected both its efficiency and effectiveness. Poor documentation from proposers and/or late submission of documentation impacted on the time that the Sub-Committee needed to spend on a proposal and the likelihood that the proposal would be scrutinised to the level that the Sub-Committee would normally aim for. It was hoped that new guidelines for Programme Specifications shortly to be made available, and the advice that would be available from Faculty Quality Enhancement Officers in producing Programme Specifications, would help in this respect. It was difficult to find suitable sanctions to prevent poor/late documentation, as the Sub-Committee’s intention was to facilitate programme approval whilst assuring that quality issues had been properly addressed. The need for HoDs to sanction programme proposals was underlined. It was suggested that following the submission of a poor/late proposal in future the HoD should be contacted to make them aware of the time wasted by the Sub-Committee in considering the proposal. If this process needed to be repeated the HoD would be informed that there could be no guarantee that any future inadequate submission from that department could be considered by the Sub-Committee.

.3 The third factor affecting the Sub-Committee’s efficiency and effectiveness related to decisions being made at a strategic level which put the Sub-Committee is a difficult position whereby it was effectively forced to approve proposals within a timescale that required additional time to be spent by members in considering the proposal with the likelihood that members’ scrutiny of the proposal was hampered. However, it was appreciated that some flexibility was needed in the approval process to ensure that opportunities for new programmes were not missed. The Sub-Committee would wish to continue to provide the flexibility to achieve the outcomes sought by the University, but it needed to be understood that there were risks in terms of quality of provision if proposals were rushed through. Members’ experience suggested that the University was in the upper-quartile of institutions for having a flexible programme approval process that allowed for fast-tracking and had an efficient process with relatively few stages.

.4 It was noted that the Sub-Committee would in future be asked to consider its effectiveness at its last meeting in the academic year, and would do so at its meeting in May 2010. In the meantime consultation would be undertaken with other stakeholders, including the student body.

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – October 2009