Senate

Subject: Student Appeals Procedure

Origin: Learning and Teaching Committee 14 February 2002

The Committee received a report on the operation of the Student Appeals procedure since its introduction at the end of the 2000/01 session. A number of changes were proposed to Regulation XIV, partly to reflect the way in which in practice it had been agreed to operate the procedure and partly to tidy up the wording (Appendix). The Committee, on the advice of the PDQ Team , ENDORSED the changes proposed, which it was felt would help to ensure the smooth operation and effectiveness of the appeals procedure.

APPENDIX

Title: Revision of Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme Board or Module Board Decisions

Origin: Director of Registry Services

Background

The University gave final approval to the current Regulation XIV in the autumn term 2000 and the provisions came into force from January 2001. The Regulation was extended to cover termination of registration by Boards during the spring term. First experience of operating the new procedures was gained in the summer of 2001.

Summer 2001

· 48 appeals from undergraduate students

· Approx. 50% final year students querying degree classification - majority rejected by the DoRs as there were no grounds

· 12 upheld by the Dean (see below)

· 3 referred to an Academic Appeals Committee, 1 upheld appeal

Autumn 2002

· 39 appeals (25% postgraduates)

· 13 upheld by Dean

· 0 referred to Academic Appeals Committee

A number of cases turned out to be resolvable by agreeing waivers to Regulations, e.g. to permit a mixture of first and second attempts. Amendments to make this a standard option for Boards are under consideration. One case in the summer affected over 30 students and it took considerable time to inform and amend the records of the group concerned. A substantial number of unsuccessful appeals related to failure to submit an impaired performance form in time with some claims of ignorance of the procedure. The main reasons for upholding appeals were:

· Errors in the department which had unfairly disadvantaged the student

· The student had good cause for not submitting an impaired performance form in time

Lack of clarity about the deadline for submission of forms by postgraduates appeared to be a problem in one or two departments. In handling all cases, the aim was to be as consistent as possible as this must be one of the key benefits of a central appeals mechanism. As a result not all appeals supported by the Department were necessarily upheld, though the majority were.

Proposed Amendments to Regulation XIV

I am proposing a number of amendments to the Regulation (attached) to reflect how the procedure ended up working in practice and to tidy up some of the wording. For clarity at this stage, the original paragraph numbers have been retained.

Grounds for Appeal

In a small number of cases, circumstances affecting the student’s behaviour or statements prior to the examinations, rather than their performance in the examinations, affected the decision of the Programme Board in ways subsequently questioned by the student in cases. Typically, a mental health problem was involved and a small number of such appeals were upheld. The wording “performance” may therefore be too restrictive and it is proposed to add flexibility by its deletion. A further sentence is proposed to help deter frivolous appeals. This is in line with the QAA Code on Appeals and Complaints. The first sentence of paragraph 6 has been relocated as the request of the PDQ team.

Submission of Appeals

Paragraph 4 is problematic. Experience shows that students are not necessarily good at presenting their case and providing evidence initially, even when there is a genuine problem. The underlying reason for what went wrong may be concealed from them in the confidential workings of the Board, but come to light during investigation of the appeal. As a result, students may appeal initially on the wrong grounds and this clause may unfairly undermine a legitimate case. I propose it is deleted and my post be empowered in paragraph 3 to seek additional information from the student. It should be possible to handle the appeal process to ensure that it is made clear to students that they cannot keep bringing up new information or arguments where these should/could have been submitted at an earlier stage.

Paragraph 5 is inconsistent with the impaired performance procedure. The proposed amendment will address this. I suggest we remove the word “complaint” as the distinction between what constitutes a complaint and an appeal is sometimes hard enough to resolve as it is.

Paragraph 6 has been revised and probably needs moving to the next section of the Regulation – In many cases, it was impossible for me to decide whether the student had any real grounds, or in some cases even understand what they were talking about, without seeing their marks and checking whether the Board had considered an impaired performance form. I therefore obtained this information from the Student Office before making a decision and feel this process should be formalised. A significant number of appeals could be dismissed largely mechanically where the appeal simply duplicated the impaired performance form. It seems unnecessary to bother the Deans with such cases. When I felt the case was marginal in anyway, however, it was and will continue to be, referred to the Dean for a final decision. In effect this would make the prima facie stage of the procedure the responsibility of the Director of Registry Services.

Consideration of Appeals

It soon emerged that some appeals could be resolved by mutual agreement with the Department without an Academic Appeals Committee, but this obviously necessitated the Department’s views being sought at any earlier stage. It was further clear that it was difficult to judge whether there was any substance to an appeal without comments from the Department. As the Regulation is written, these views probably should not have been obtained without convening the Appeals Committee. However, to streamline the process, we developed a variation to the formal procedure, agreed with each student and endorsed by Martin Matthews in the Student Advice Centre, as follows:

1. The appeal would be referred to the Department for comment.

2. The student had the right to comment on the Department’s report before the Dean reviewed the case.

This enabled a high proportion of the more problematic cases to be resolved, often in the student’s favour, without the need for a time-consuming Appeals Committee. I am therefore recommending that this procedure be formalised. The timescale of 25 working days in total may seem long but could be required given the need to allow time for the department to prepare its comments, for the student to see these and then for the Dean to make a decision. It will be possible to deal with some case more quickly.

Academic Appeal Committee

Paragragh 9 - The membership of 5 people proved to be cumbersome and requiring a Dean caused considerable problems in the summer, with Associate Deans being called upon to assist. The Chair should surely be appointed by Senate, not Council, since we are dealing with academic appeals. It also seems improper for the Director of Registry Services to be an Appeals Committee member when he/she will have been closely involved in earlier stages of the case. PDQ agreed that the academic member should be drawn from a limited group so that over time a number of individuals with some experience would be available to serve.

Paragraph 10 – I propose this amendment to avoid having to bother the Registrar with formal approval of the Secretary. If it is devolved in practice to me anyway (the case in summer 2002) it might as well be in the Regulation and is now more appropriate given I can no longer serve on the Committee itself.

Paragraph 11 – Wording should be tightened to ensure greater independence of committee members in line with QAA expectations.

Paragraph 12 – Unchanged - We have a procedure for conduct of meeting but this need not appear in the Regulation, I think.

Paragraph 14 – Amendment will speed matters up, especially in the summer, if the Board Chair is unavailable as the Deputy Chair could act.

Paragraph 15 – I have reworded this to clarify the powers of the Committee. It does not seem acceptable for the Appeals Committee to be able to take final decisions on a student’s academic progress when it is composed of non-subject specialists who have not seen the student’s work. Appointment of a new Board (which might just replace one problematic member) may be required in the unlikely event of bias against the student.

Paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 - Further emphasis on the finality of the decisions and timescales has been added to accord more closely with the QAA Code. Paragraph 19 has been reworded to explain what would have if the Board did not accept the recommendation of the Academic Appeals Committee. This cannot occur if the Dean had referred the case since paragraph 7(ii) requires the department’s agreement for an appeal to be upheld by a Dean.

Paragraphs 19 & 20 To comply with the QAA Code, we need more detailed monitoring arrangements which cover, inter alia, gender and ethnicity, grounds for appeal, time taken for each stage and outcomes. Clearly the report needs to cover the whole procedure not just cases which lead to an Appeals Committee hearing. An annual report is recommended by QAA. Senate is possibly not the right body to consider the report in an active way but PDQ Team agreed it might usefully go via PDQ and Learning and Teaching Committee.

Dr Jennifer Nutkins

Director of Registry Services 4 February 2002

Author - Robert Bowyer

Date - February 2002