Academic Development Proposal Plan by gty33410

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 11

									PLANNING APPROVALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Academic Development Proposal Plan - Guidance and Template
PLEASE DELETE ALL GUIDANCE (BLUE TEXT) PRIOR TO SUBMISSION

Introduction

As a Sub-Committee of the University Academic Strategy Committee, Planning Approvals Sub-
Committee (PASC) gives planning approval for review and revalidation of existing provision, and
additions and deletions to the University’s academic portfolio, in order that they can progress to
validation.

The following require the submission of an Academic Development Proposal Plan

   new pathways/subjects
   provision involving new UK or overseas collaborative partners
   extensions to provision with existing collaborative partners
   changes to the mode of delivery
   changes in the delivery mechanism of existing modules or pathways

The following deletions require the submission of an Academic Development Deletion Plan

   deletion of existing pathways/subjects
   deletion of existing collaborative provision

For periodic review and revalidation an Academic Development Review and Revalidation Plan will
be required. Where the review incorporates the introduction of new pathways, Proposal Plans will be
required for each

The Proposal Plan Template is provided below. All planning templates and guidance notes are available
electronically on the Quality and Academic Standards (QASD) web page Handbooks, Guidelines, Policies
and Templates

Deadlines

Schools must inform PASC of all proposals to be developed for starting in the next academic year at the
planning meetings held with each School in March/April or preferably submit the proposals to this
meeting. If proposals are not submitted in April/May, deadlines for future submission will be agreed.

In order that Schools can meet the deadlines for UCAS and for the published Prospectus/es, proposals
identified in School Plans will not normally be considered by PASC after the December meeting in the
year prior to the intended delivery date. Those proposals which miss this deadline will either not be
considered for the following September, or will be recommended for a Semester 2 start. They can
however, be advertised on the University’s web course entry and other second level publications as
“Subject to Approval”.

Fast Track Proposals

PASC requires each School to meet the deadlines given above, but recognises the need for flexibility and
responsiveness when a faster process is required. In the case of the instances listed below, when there
is a need to fast track a proposal, an additional, specific paper should be provided on the risks involved in
rapid approval, should be provided and presented, via the PASC Officer, to the Chair of PASC for
consideration along with the normal proposal documentation. The Chair, in consultation with other
appropriate members of PASC (either by correspondence or by convening a sub-group) will consider the
proposal for Chair’s action

 developments with collaborative partners or external clients
 developments which are required to bring University programmes into line with statutory or
  professional body requirements etc
 responses to Government or external agency initiatives
 Foundation Degrees

                                                      1 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
In addition, there may be the need to fast track other initiatives as follows:

 CPD activity in line with the requirements of regional organisations in public, private and voluntary
  sectors
 short courses

In these cases, a detailed rationale, including the risks involved in rapid approval, should be provided and
presented, via the PASC Officer, to the Chair of PASC for consideration. The Chair, in consultation with
other appropriate members of PASC (either by correspondence or by convening a sub-group) will
consider the proposal for Chair’s action

The Template

Section 1 - Title

If the market demand is evident for a new course, the title must be appropriate to the content and be
understandable to the client market, to employers and to other stakeholders

The use of FD (Arts)/FD (Science), BA/BSc and MA/MSc in award titles

The current guidelines on the use of FD (Arts)/FD (Science), BA/BSc and MA/MSc were formulated a
number of years ago and rest essentially on two bases:

   the proportion of quantitative or scientific method modules in the degree programme
   traditional usage in the School proposing the pathway

In the future, in determining whether an award title should be BA/MA or BSc/MSc, PASC will consider
whether the proposed title is consistent with either

a) the traditional conventions of the discipline/s and the course/s under scrutiny or
b) the current usage in the sector in the United Kingdom for similar courses

Proposing teams should make it explicit whether they are basing their claim for a title on a) or on
b. If the title rests on (b), empirical evidence to support the claim should be provided with the proposal
plan. If PASC is satisfied that a case has been made, the decision will be communicated to the Standing
Panel as part of the standard feedback documentation

Section 3- Market and Market Demand

The marketing implications of offering the new course should be addressed in conjunction with Marketing
and Communications (MaC) to establish the marketing requirements for the new course and its
incorporation into existing marketing procedures

Provision of market demand and market trends should involve consultation of enrolment statistics on
similar national and international courses to determine whether the proposal falls within a growth area

7   External Competitor Courses

    An informed judgement should be made as to the feasibility of the course based on an analysis of
    local and regional competition. Regional competitors should be highlighted and their current offerings
    identified

Section 4 - Initial Development and Discussion

1   Module Diet

    The proposed module diet will be identified at the development stage, and if there is a potential
    overlap of course content between one area and another, the possibility of shared teaching and/or
    collaborative delivery with another School should be investigated. If this is considered impossible or
    inappropriate, the reasons must be articulated


                                                      2 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
2   Internal Collaboration

    When proposing a new course it is critical to ensure that the new provision does not have an adverse
    impact on existing provision elsewhere in the University by spreading the same potential student
    market over a number of similar courses, or displacing students from one course to another, or from
    one School, to another. It is essential that new courses identify market growth potential, and address
    the potential impact upon existing courses at the planning stage

Section 8 - Signatures of Approval

    All proposal plans must be signed by the Dean of School

    If the proposal involves collaboration with another School in the University, or if there is likely to be
    any area of overlap or conflict of interest, the signature(s) of the Dean(s) of School(s) involved in or
    affected by the proposal should be included in the plan.

Further Information/Help

    For further information or help on please contact:

     Name                    Title                                        Ext’n   Email address
     Jane Ferguson           Senior Academic Planning Officer –           3065    J.A.Ferguson@wlv.ac.uk
                             Quality  and  Academic   Standards
                             Division




                                                      3 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
Academic Development Proposal Plan
All sections to be completed and plan approved by the Dean. An electronic version of the completed
Proposal Plan Template together with the signed paper copy should be sent to the Senior Academic
Planning Officer in QASD

Section 1 –Proposal Overview

Title of proposed new pathway (Indicate whether this is a working title)

Intermediate Awards (list all proposed intermediate awards)
Level of Study (HNC/HND/FD/UG/PG/Other)
Is this a fast track proposal?
If yes, provide an additional, specific paper on the risks involved in rapid approval
Priority in the School

School                                                     Other     University    Schools       involved
                                                           in/affected by this proposal
Key Proposer/s (name/s, telephone number/s,                Key Proposer/s in collaborating School/s
email address/es, UW location)                             (name/s, telephone number/s, email address/es,
                                                           UW location)


Proposed start date (indicate semester and                 Duration of course
academic year)


Type (please  all that apply)

Specialist     Joint    Top-up      Short Course       Closed Course         Popular           Additional
                                                                           Combination        Combination


Modes of Study (please  all that apply for the proposed start date only – please do not anticipate
future demand for additional modes of delivery)
        Full Time            Sandwich           Block

        Part Time                  Day              Evening         Day and Evening          Weekend


JACS Subject Code
Timetable Zone
Entry Requirements: UCAS Tariff
Entry requirements: GCSE subjects, grades
Entry Requirements: other

Where and how the pathway will be delivered: (please  all that apply)
Single Campus (identify) Split Campus (identify) Blended Learning               Work-Based       On-line
                                                                                 Learning        Delivery


Internal collaboration - if the proposal involves another University School, please describe your
respective inputs with regard to course delivery arrangements




                                                      4 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
Funding source - please state the funding source for the proposal, e.g. HEFCE (indicate price group),
TTA, NHS Block Contract, European Social Fund or any other source of funding


Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB)

1   Will the validation of the proposal involve a PSRB?                                  Yes/No

    If yes, please provide details:

2   Will Professional Body accreditation be sought post-validation                       Yes/No

    If yes, please provide details of the timescales involved etc


University Regulations - does the proposal comply with University Regulations?                 Yes/No

(Note: if the proposal does not comply with University Regulations application for approval for exemption
must by made concurrently to Academic Regulations Sub-Committee)

If no, please state

1   The way/s in which it varies
2   The reasons for the variation




                                                      5 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
Section 2 - Rationale for development of the provision

The Proposal

1   Was the proposal identified in the School Plan?

2   Outline how the idea for the proposal originated

3   Articulate why you believe it will be successful

Strategic Fit

1   Demonstrate how the proposal meets the corporate priorities laid down in the University’s Strategic
    Plan and the School Plan

2   Show how the proposal fits in to the overall University portfolio of subjects and awards

3   Show how the proposal fits in to your School’s portfolio of subjects and awards, and state whether
    this is a new departure for the University or whether it is building on, complementing, or duplicating
    existing provision in your School or in other Schools

Section 3 – Market and Market Demand

Identify the internal and external factors that support the development of this new proposal

1   Market Intelligence:

    a) Provide and quantify market intelligence sources that support the proposal

    b)   Provide evidence of market demand and market trends

    c)   Give any other academic related reason eg Subject Benchmarks, Professional and Statutory
         Bodies, Governmental or other external driver, meeting the needs of employers or industry etc in
         support of your proposal

2   Marketing

    Outline how the proposal is to be marketed

3   Sources of Potential Students

    Identify the main client groups and from where they will be derived

4   Student Numbers

    a) Show projected new student FTE entrants/cohort sizes regionally, nationally and internationally

                         Student Derivation            Year 1     Year 2   Year 3
                         Regional
                         National
                         International

    b) Provide evidence for your assumptions

5   Graduate Prospects

    a) Provide evidence of career opportunities for graduates of the programme e.g. review of current
       job advertisements, evidence of reported skills shortages, employment trend information etc

    b) Give reasons why graduates will be employable



                                                      6 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
6   Regional, national or international employment

    Show projected links with Regional, national or international employment needs

7   External Competitor Courses

    Give details of other regional and national institutions that offer any similar provision

Section 4 – Initial Development and Discussion

1   Module Diet

    Show the proposed module diet

                         Title                             Module Code        Level    Owning School
        (indicate whether this is a working title)         (if in approval)
                                                                                       Tab to insert rows

2   Internal Collaboration

    1   State whether this a new departure for the University, or whether it is building on, complementing,
        or duplicating existing provision in other Schools

    2   Indicate which other Schools you have worked with during the initial development stages, and
        which Schools you have considered working with

    3   If you have not considered working with other University Schools please state the reasons why

Section 5 – Resources

Outline how the following will be provided. If they are to be provided from current provision, identify any
potential impact on current resources

1   Staffing resources - teaching (including Visiting Lecturers) technical and administrative etc

2   Staff development - identify the expertise within the School to deliver the new provision and highlight
    any staff development requirements (to be costed below)

3   Teaching Resources (e.g. new equipment, studio space, specialist laboratory provision etc.). Quantify
    and cost how this will be resourced

4   Intellectual capital (research underpinning etc)

3   Central Services, (e.g. Estates, IT Services etc). Evidence of appropriate discussions having taken
    place to be provided

6   Learning Resources – evidence to be provided that appropriate discussions have taken place with
    Learning Information Services, and confirmation received of the adequacy of the book stocks,
    journals, on-line facilities etc

Section 6 - Costings

Provide a breakdown of the resources and costs required to run the provision

                                                                                         Hours        Rate
STAFFING - indicate the total staffing requirement to deliver the programme
and identify costings for any additional staff
Award Leader
Principal Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Visiting Lecturer
                                                      7 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
Administrative staff - UW Scale
Technical staff - UW Scale
Above the Line - Sub Total
                                                                                    Quantity        Rate
STAFF DEVELOPMENT

LEARNING CENTRE COSTS
Books
Journals
On-line materials

OTHER LEARNING COSTS
Distance Learning Materials
Course specific software


CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Specialist capital equipment and other expenditure needs not covered above

VALIDATION COSTS – as agreed with QASD

OTHER COSTS (eg start-up costs etc) as agreed with the Head of Finance (to
include a costing fee if a programme does not recruit)
Below the Line - Sub Total

EXPENDITURE TOTAL

INCOME TOTAL

SURPLUS

Section 7 – Risk Assessment

A Risk Assessment must be completed and submitted as part of the proposal (see Annex 1)

Section 8 – Signatures of Approval

The Dean is signing to say that s/he approves the new development and that all resources are in place or
will be put in place to allow it to proceed

                                              Signature                              Date
Dean of proposing School


For proposals involving or affecting other UW Schools

Deans of other Schools involved in or affected by this proposal are signing to indicate their approval

                                              Signature(s)                           Date
Dean of School of

Dean of School of

Dean of School of


PASC Approval

                                              Signature                              Date
Chair of PASC

                                                      8 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Date of consideration by PASC
Approved Y/N
Approved for recruitment in
Additional information to be provided to PASC
Chair’s action to approve (attach all relevant email
correspondence)
Deadline for receipt
Date of final approval
Approval mechanism (UVP/SVP)
Date Plan released by PASC




                                                      9 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
                                                                                         Annex 1

                                            Risk Assessment Tool

                  Planning Approval for Academic Development of a New Programme

Title of Proposed Programme:

Key Proposer:

Date Completed:

This assessment should be completed by the Key Proposer. The assessment will be verified by PASC
following consideration of the proposal with the key proposing team. The assessment will be used to
inform the route and intensity of validation. Low risk proposals will normally be devolved to SQECs for
validation. Consideration will also be given to reducing the intensity of the process (e.g. by
correspondence, reduced documentary evidence) NB. Consideration of any proposal devolved to SQEC
must involve an external adviser. High Risk proposals will be referred to the University Quality Panel for
validation. Decisions about Medium Risk proposals will reflect the particular circumstances and specific
risks identified.

Factor                                                                     Score      Actual Score
                                                                          Options       for this
                                                                                       proposal
Delivery
Programme delivered/managed in one School                                    1
Programme delivered/managed in collaboration with one other                  2
School
Programme delivered across more than one School                              3

Market Intelligence/Business Case
Robust well made business case. Strong strategic fit. Case for               1
sustainable market evident.
Business case made in the short term. Strategic fit evident. Case            2
for sustainable market not clear.
Business case weak or absent. Strategic fit unclear. No evidence             3
of sustainable market.

Physical Resources (e.g. teaching space, IT, laboratory)
Physical resources to support proposal in place                              1
Physical resources to support proposal planned for                           2
Physical resource to support proposal not considered                         3

Staffing Resources (Academic and Administrative)
Appropriate staffing resources to support the proposal in place              1
Appropriate staffing resources to support the proposal planned for           2
Staffing resources to support the proposal not considered                    3

Funding Source
HEFCE Funded                                                                 1
NHS/TTA or other public body funding                                         2
Funding source not yet secured                                               3

PSRB Involvement
No PSRB involvement                                                          1
PSRB accreditation available but not required                                2
PSRB accreditation/approval required for award                               3




                                                     10 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008
University Regulations
Approved University award title in existence                                      1
New University award title required                                               2

Proposal complies with existing University regulations                            1
Proposal requires exemptions/changes to University regulations                    2

SUB-TOTAL A =

Additional Quality Indicators (where information is available)
Related subject area external examiners generally positive                        1
Related subject area external examiners generally critical                        2

Related relevant PSRB feedback generally positive                                 1
Related relevant PSRB feedback generally critical                                 2

NSS
Related subject area student satisfaction rating at or above                      1
national average
Related subject are student satisfaction rating below national                    2
average

ADDITIONAL QUALITY INDICATORS SUB-SCORE B =

TOTAL SCORE = A + B

Without Additional Quality Indicators Factors

Minimum Risk Score = 8
Maximum Risk Score = 22

Low Risk = 8 – 11                  Medium Risk = 12 – 16                  High Risk = 17+

With Additional Quality Indicators

Minimum Score = 11
Maximum Risk Score = 28

Low Risk = 11 – 14                 Medium Risk = 15 – 19                  High Risk = 20+

NB: Whatever total score is achieved a score of 2 or lower must be achieved in each of the following
categories: Market Intelligence/Business Case, Physical Resources and Staffing Resources

As a general indicator Planning Approvals Sub-Committee would consider:

       LOW RISK proposals to be suitable for validation through School Quality Enhancement
        Committee arrangements.
       MEDIUM RISK proposals to be suitable for validation through either SQECs or University Quality
        Panel depending on the nature of the risks identified.
       HIGH RISK proposals to be validated through the University Quality Panel only.

PLEASE NOTE: The risk scores are an indicator to inform decision-making. Actual decisions will
be based on all of the circumstances known to PASC and not the outcomes of the risk
assessment tool alone.




                                                     11 of 11
Academic Development Proposal Plan Guidance and Template September 2008

								
To top