Programme Academic Case Confirmation Group

Shortcuts: Purpose |Ways of working| Membership and quorum | Mode of operation | Meeting dates

The Programme Academic Case Confirmation Group (ACCG) is a sub-committee of the University Education Committee. 

Purpose 

The Programme Academic Case Confirmation Group is established as a single decision point where School, Faculty and University requirements for new and high-risk changes to programmes can be considered. The Programme Academic Case Confirmation Group is established to collaboratively review:

  1. academic cases for proposed new programmes (following approval of the business case as per current requirements)  
  2. high risk changes to existing programmes (i.e. those that either have needed a business case before academic case development or those that carry high risk due to change in provision that will significantly alter student experience) 
  3. high risk programme suspensions and withdrawals (e.g. in-cycle requests plus out of cycle requests that are considered high-risk) 

Following approval of the business case, the academic case paperwork is developed by subject experts and then considered and finalised through the Academic Case Confirmation Group. This approach aims to ensure that the academic rationale aligns with our institutional values and strategic priorities, while fitting with any School and Faculty focus or initiatives. Review of the programme paperwork will confirm relevant academic standards are met. The group draws on expert discipline and pedagogical perspectives from schools, faculties and central role holders to share best practice whilst also broadening knowledge and understanding to best support an excellent student experience. The process is consultative and co-owned by all participants, with the group’s key purpose being to support the development of excellent programmes. The group will follow the core principles of:  

  • Constructiveness: All input is focused on enhancing the quality, clarity, and deliverability of the programme or change requested. 
  • Collegiality: All members contribute to review of the academic case and the discussion on whether any improvements or changes are needed for delivery to be achieved and of the best quality.  
  • Consensus-Based Decision Making: The group works towards collective agreement rather than majority voting. 
  • Transparency: Discussions and decisions are documented and shared openly among group members and with the academics who have designed the programme. 

Ways of working

The Academic Case Confirmation Group is established as a single decision point where School, Faculty and University requirements for new and high-risk changes to programmes can be considered.  It is also the committee to which low-risk programme changes approved by the faculties will be reported.  

Initial Meeting: 

1. Following agreement of the business case (where required) AQPO (via Sophie Billings) will arrange a meeting with the academic lead to explain the expectations regarding the academic case and discuss timelines for this process and how it fits with recruitment and admissions.  Others invited to this meeting will be: 

    • A Critical Friend – who will be an academic from outside the programme’s discipline that has experience of developing programmes. They will provide feedback to the programme team as they work on developing their ideas and will provide a report that will feed into the Academic Case Confirmation Group meeting. AQPO oversees the Critical Friends and will assign an appropriate individual. 
    • The Faculty Academic Director (Programmes, Curriculum and Assessment) - so that they can have early input into programme development within their faculty.  
    • The SED from the proposing School – so that they can have early input into programme development within their school.
    • A SED from a different school but within the proposing Faculty, if requested by the relevant Faculty aPVC (Education) as a mechanism to build experience and share good practice across the Faculty. 
    • Other central education service leads as required (eg admissions or marketing) as determined by AQPO.  

2. Where a joint or interdisciplinary programme is being developed a view will be taken on appropriate invitations to ensure openness and collaboration during development and approval.  

3. During this initial meeting a proposed timeline for completing the academic case paperwork will be discussed so that a suitable meeting date of the Academic Case Confirmation Group can be agreed. This will consider School and Faculty timelines for marketing and recruitment.  

4. Programme Leads are advised to make use of the knowledge and expertise of their assigned Critical Friend, Faculty AD (PCA) and SED(s) to ensure the paperwork is aligned to School, Faculty and University strategies and expectations.  

During programme development (i.e. prior to the Academic Case Confirmation Group meeting): 

5. The Academic Case Confirmation Group will meet at agreed points through the academic year to align with key programme development timelines and historical records of previous approval requests through UAQSC. However, where necessary meetings can be added or moved to facilitate agile and timely decision making on programme development.   

6. The deadline for submission of all paperwork (including external and critical friend reports and student voice input) will be two weeks prior to the published date of the meeting of the Academic Case Confirmation Group. There should be no other School or Faculty deadlines linked to approval of the academic case paperwork.  

7. Following submission, paperwork will be uploaded to Sharepoint for sharing with members of the Academic Case Confirmation Group (see membership above). An ‘Outcomes’ document will be generated for each programme being considered. A Faculty Academic Director from outside the proposing Faculty will be assigned, by discussion with Faculty aPVCs (Education). This ‘external’ AD, together with the proposing faculty AD are the lead reviewers for the programme at the Academic Case Confirmation Group meeting. The lead reviewers must provide feedback on the Outcomes document, even if just to confirm that no concerns have been raised.  

8. The programme paperwork and the Outcomes document will also be shared with key posts within the School (SED, SAM and School Manager (and Departmental Teaching & Learning Lead where relevant) and Faculty (Head of Faculty Education and Student Success).  

9. All members of the Academic Case Confirmation Group and identified individuals (lead reviewers and the SED) from the proposing School and Faculty should review the paperwork and add their view to the relevant ‘Outcomes’ document. Minor edits can be indicated directly on the academic case paperwork. These will not be discussed at the formal meeting and are to aid the Academic Lead in ensuring final documents are error free. 

10. At least three days prior to the Academic Case Confirmation Group meeting date all should have provided any feedback and questions they wish to raise within the relevant ‘Outcomes’ document. A RAG rating (green, amber, red) will be indicated by each reviewer linked to whether there are issues that need to be addressed before the paperwork is finalised.  

11. In the three working days immediately prior to the meeting of the Academic Case Confirmation Group the academic lead of the programme can review and add written responses to the ‘Outcomes’ document and update the paperwork as necessary prior to the meeting. Alternatively, they can provide verbal responses at the scheduled meeting with subsequent paperwork updates as required.   

Academic Case Confirmation Group Meeting: 

12. Agendas for the Programme Academic Case Confirmation Group will be based around programmes for discussion. The relevant SED and Academic Lead for each programme will be invited to a specific part of the meeting when the programme is scheduled for review so that they can feed into the discussion.  

13. The two Faculty ADs who are reviewing the case will give their initial overview of the programme, highlighting any concerns that have been raised in the Outcomes document that are yet to be addressed.  

14. The Academic Lead is asked to comment and respond to any outstanding issues or questions.  

15. By discussion with the Academic Lead and the SED, the Academic Case Confirmation Group will indicate any remaining changes that are needed before the programme can be recommended to UEC as being opened for recruitment.  

16. The Faculty Academic Director (PCA) from the proposing Faculty will support the academic lead in completing any remaining changes necessary.  

17. RAG ratings need to be updated to green as issues are addressed and confirmed.  

18. Once all paperwork is updated the academic lead should inform AQPO (Sophie Billings) who will notify the SED, Faculty aPVC (Education) and aPVC (QA & E) who will confirm whether the academic case is agreed.  

Reporting and Outputs 

19. Once all queries are resolved to the satisfaction of the group the academic case will be recommended to UEC for approval. The Outcomes document will accompany the recommendation to provide context and evidence of collaborative development. 

 Membership and quorum 

The membership of the Committee for 2025-26 is as follows:

Name Job title or Role
 Professor Kate Whittington   Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality and Standards) (Chair) 
 Dr Mark Allinson  Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
Dr Pete Brennan   Health and Life Faculty aPVC Education and Students  
 Dr Dawn Davies   Health and Life Faculty AD (Programmes, Curriculum and Assessment) 
 Professor Sheena Warman   Health and Life Faculty AD (Teaching Excellence) 
 Dr Dave Lawson   Health and Life Faculty AD (Belonging and Inclusion) 
 Professor Ki Cater   Science and Engineering aPVC Education and Students  
 Dr Cameron Hall   Science and Engineering AD (Programmes, Curriculum and Assessment) 
 Dr Chris Russell   Science and Engineering AD (Teaching Excellence) 
 Dr Joel Ross   Science and Engineering AD (Belonging and Inclusion) 
Dr James Freeman  Arts, Law and Social Science aPVC Education and Students  

Professor Bradley Stephens 

 Arts, Law and Social Science AD (Programmes, Curriculum and Assessment) 
Professor Steven Proud  Arts, Law and Social Science AD (Teaching Excellence) 
Dr Jessica Roy  Arts, Law and Social Science AD (Belonging and Inclusion) 
Elinor Davies  Director of Academic Quality and Policy (or nominee) 
Sophie Billings  Representative from AQPO [Adviser to the Committee] 
Lori Johnston  Committee Secretary 

The group will be composed of: 

  • Programme Academic Lead in attendance for their case to input into the discussion and respond to queries on the Outcomes Document.  
  • School-level - SED in attendance for cases from their School with other School staff feeding into the 'Outcomes’ document (see ‘Ways of Working’).
  • Faculty-level education leads – Faculty aPVCs (Education and Students) and Academic Directors in each Faculty will attend on a flexible basis, as agreed within Faculty through the year. At least two education leads from each Faculty will attend each meeting, whilst all education leaders from the Faculty can review cases and add comments to the outcomes document (see ways of working).  
  • Thematic aPVCs – Education Quality Assurance and Enhancement (Chair) and Strategic Education Projects 
  • Director of Education Quality and Policy; Academic Quality Manager (AQPO).  

Other members who are unable to attend a committee meeting may send a suitably qualified nominee (at the discretion of the Chair). Nominees shall count towards the quorum as though they were the member of the Committee by whom they were nominated and, subject to the agreement of the Chair, shall be entitle to vote. 

Decision-making between meetings   

Where decisions are required between meetings of the committee (due to the urgency of the matter and for the good of the University), the Chair is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the committee (i.e. use ‘Chair’s action’).   

If the Chair feels it is appropriate, business may also be conducted electronically via email with the committee between meetings (i.e. by correspondence).     

A decision made by Chair’s action or by correspondence shall be valid as though taken at a meeting of the committee.   

Any such decisions will be reported to the next meeting of the committee. 

 

Mode of Operation

1. The Committee will normally meet four times a year.

2. The Committee will normally report to University Education Committee following each meeting.

3. The Committee’s annual schedule of business will be determined by the new programmes that are being developed in any year. 

 

Meeting dates

The Academic Case Confirmation Group reports to University Education Committee so the meetings are scheduled to enable this.

Academic Case Confirmation Group reporting schedule 2025-26 (and September 2026/27)
Paper Deadline Meeting Date Reports to University Education Committee (UEC date)

 

N/A AQSC

24/09/2025 

CoB Tuesday 30/09/25

Thursday 16/10/2025

05/11/2025 

CoB Tuesday 17/03/2026 

Thursday 02/04/2026

15/04/2026 

CoB Tuesday 05/05/2026

Thursday 21/05/2026 

10/06/2026

CoB Tuesday 21/08/2026 

 Thursday 03/09/2026

23/09/2026 (TBC)