Company number: 12497951
6 Sutton Park Road, Sutton, SM1 2GD

Module, Progression, and Award Regulations

Policy Statement

The School is committed to maintaining rigorous academic standards through a transparent system for determining module results and awards. The School ensures fair student evaluation via diverse assessments, weighted marking, and comprehensive moderation. Module and Programme Examination Boards oversee this process, ensuring alignment with sector benchmarks. Constructive feedback supports student development, recognising effort and excellence while upholding academic integrity.

Principles

Accuracy: Ensuring that all results and awards are recorded and reported with meticulous precision.
Fairness: Assessing all student work equitably, with consistent application of standards.
Timeliness: Providing results and awards within a reasonable and clearly communicated timeframe.
Transparency: Making the criteria and processes for result calculation and award conferment openly available to all affected parties.
Recognition: Celebrating academic achievement and progress through the proper conferment of awards.
Equity: Treating all students justly, without bias or favouritism, regardless of their course or level of study.
Confidentiality: Safeguarding students' personal and academic information throughout the assessment and award process.
Consistency: Applying regulations consistently across all departments and disciplines within the School.
Clarity: Communicating all regulations and procedures clearly and understandably to students and staff.
Integrity: Upholding the highest standards of academic integrity in every aspect of assessment and award conferment.
Review: Empowering relevant bodies to review module results and award decisions swiftly and rigorously where necessary.
Continuous Improvement: Committing to the regular review and enhancement of regulations to reflect best practices in student assessment and award conferment.

Regulatory Context

This Policy has been developed in line with the applicable laws, regulations, regulatory advice, and sector best practices, including the following:

Authority	Name	Url
Office for Students (OfS)	Regulatory framework for higher education in England This framework outlines OfS' primary aim to ensure positive outcomes for students, including access, success, and progress in higher education. It covers quality academic experience, progress into employment, and value for money.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)	Code of Practice for Higher Education Guidance for higher education providers on their obligations under equality law.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Subject Benchmark Statement - Computing It describes the nature and characteristics of awards in computing and what graduates are expected to know, understand and be able to do.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Advice - Assessment and Marking Guidance on assessment and marking for higher education providers .
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Advice - Enabling Student Achievement
Office for Students (OfS)	Sector-recognised standards The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Higher Education Credit Framework for England: Advice on Academic Credit Arrangements This framework for credits assesses course value, evaluates student workload, impacts degree outcomes, supports institutional transfer, and determines graduation eligibility.

Authority

Name

Url

Office for Students (OfS)

Regulatory framework for higher education in England
This framework outlines OfS' primary aim to ensure positive outcomes for students, including access, success, and progress in higher education. It covers quality academic experience, progress into employment, and value for money.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

Code of Practice for Higher Education
Guidance for higher education providers on their obligations under equality law.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Subject Benchmark Statement - Computing
It describes the nature and characteristics of awards in computing and what graduates are expected to know, understand and be able to do.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Advice - Assessment and Marking
Guidance on assessment and marking for higher education providers .

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Advice - Enabling Student Achievement

Office for Students (OfS)

Sector-recognised standards
The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Higher Education Credit Framework for England: Advice on Academic Credit Arrangements
This framework for credits assesses course value, evaluates student workload, impacts degree outcomes, supports institutional transfer, and determines graduation eligibility.

Academic Awards, Credit Allocation, and Assessment Practices

Title

Rule
School Awards

The School’s programmes can lead to the following awards under OfS sector-recognised standards:

Award		Level
Taught masters’ degrees e.g. MSc	Postgraduate	7
Postgraduate diplomas		7
Postgraduate certificates		7
Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons	Undergraduate	6
Bachelors’ degrees		6
Graduate diplomas		6
Graduate certificates		6
Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)		5
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)		4

The Programme Examination Board can grant these as exit awards if a student attains the required credits and meets the relevant descriptors, as stated in the programme specification.

This ensures students receive recognised qualifications upon meeting required standards, even if they exit early.

Advice
Principle: Credits Based on Achievement as Opposed to Time

The School adheres to the OfS principle that higher education qualifications are based on achieving outcomes, not years of study. This is demonstrated through a credit-based system, awarding credits after successful assessments ratified by the School or another approved means. The School uses the Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (CATS), with each credit worth 10 hours of learning.

This ensures qualifications are awarded based on actual learning and achievement, promoting flexibility and recognising diverse learning paths.

Rule
Award Eligibility and Credit Requirements

To receive a final award, students must earn the required credits by the end of their maximum registration period and comply with all academic regulations:

Award		Level	Required number of credits	Maximum Number of Credits Permitted by Way of RPL and RPE	Minimum Number of Credits that Must be Successfully Achieved at School
Taught masters’ degrees e.g. MSc	Postgraduate	7	180 (150 at Level 7)	90	90 credits at Level 7
Postgraduate diplomas		7	120 (90 at Level 7)	60	60 credits at Level 7
Postgraduate certificates		7	60 (40 at Level 7)	30	30 credits at Level 7
Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons	Undergraduate	6	360 (90 at Level 6)	240	120 credits (60 at Level 5 and 60 at Level 6)
Bachelors’ degrees		6	300 (60 at Level 6)	200	100 credits (40 at Level 5 and 60 at Level 6)
Graduate diplomas		6	80 (80 at Level 6)	40	40 credits (40 at Level 6)
Graduate certificates		6	40 (40 at Level 6)	20	20 credits (20 at Level 6)
Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)		5	240 (90 at Level 5)	160	80 credits (20 at level 4 and 60 at Level 5)
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)		4	120 (90 at Level 4)	60	60 credits (60 at Level 4)

The maximum registration periods for each programme, by study mode, are:

Award	Full-Time Blended Learning (Years)		Part-Time Blended Learning (Years)		Accelerated Blended Learning (years)		Flexible Online Learning (Years)
	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max	Min	Max
Taught masters’ degrees e.g. MSc	1	5	2	10	X	X	1	5
Postgraduate diplomas	1	3	2	6	X	X	1	3
Postgraduate certificates	1	3	2	6	X	X	1	3
Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons	3	6	6	12	2	4	3	6
Bachelors’ degrees	3	6	6	12	2	4	3	6
Graduate diplomas	1	3	2	6	X	X	1	3
Graduate certificates	1	3	2	6	X	X	1	3
Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)	2	4	4	8	X	X	2	4
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)	1	3	2	6	X	X	1	3

Credit limits per mode of study per academic year are:

	Full-time Blended Learning	Part-time Blended Learning	Accelerated Blended Learning	Flexible Online Learning
Undergraduate	Up to 60 credits per semester across 2-semesters	Up to 30 credits per semester across 2 semesters	Up to 60 credits per semester across 3 semesters	Up to 60 credits per semester across 2 semesters
Postgraduate	Up to 60 credits per semester across 3-semesters	Up to 30 credits per semester across 3 semesters	X	Up to 60 credits per semester across 3 semesters

Students may take up to 20 extra credits if retaking a module.

Students must complete their awards within the maximum registration period for their study mode and reenrol each calendar year. This is subject to PSRB and external requirements. The School can also grant exit awards in accordance with this regulation.

This ensures students meet all requirements for their awards within specified time frames, maintaining academic standards and flexibility while adhering to external regulations.

Module Management: Calculations; Progression; Credit Allocation; Condonement

Title

Definition
Definition and Importance of Programmes and Modules

A 'programme' is a set of teaching and learning outcomes in a subject, approved by the School to lead to a qualification under OfS standards upon attaining the requisite credits and descriptors. It consists of modules, which are discrete units of learning at a specific level with defined subject matter, credit volume, learning outcomes, and summative assessments. Summative assessments are crucial for determining:

Progression: Assessing if a student should advance to the next level in multi-level programmes
Credits: Using marks and credits to determine awards

This ensures that students understand the structure and significance of programmes and modules, particularly the role of summative assessments in progression and awarding qualifications.

Advice
Accessing Summative Assessment Information

Students can find detailed information on summative assessments, including credit values and assessment weightings, from the module specification and assessment briefs on the Automated Governance System (AGS).

This ensures students have easy access to important assessment details, helping them understand module requirements and evaluation criteria.

Rule
Academic Regulations

All module summative assessments must adhere to the Assessment Regulations, covering:

Moderation of draft assessments
Academic integrity
Assessment processes
Marking
Internal and external scrutiny

This ensures that all assessments are fair, consistent, and maintain academic standards.

Rule
Automatic Assessment Rule

A student who registers for a module is deemed to have registered for its assessments unless they have formally withdrawn through the system. Missing an assessment will result in a mark of 0%, except in cases of intermission or extenuating circumstances. Starting an assessment, such as an exam or presentation, will be considered as having completed it, and the School's policies, including those on extenuating circumstances, will apply. Submitting a coursework late and the effect of extenuating circumstances is dealt with by the Assessment Regulations.

This ensures that students are held accountable for their assessments unless they officially withdraw or have valid reasons like intermission or extenuating circumstances. It maintains fairness by treating the start of an assessment as a commitment to complete it, thus applying the School's policies consistently.

Rule
Marking and Scrutiny Process

Markers must use only the items provided by the module leader, including the exam paper, criteria, model answers, and instructions, and follow these marking principles:

Adherence to academic regulations
Academic judgement
Full mark range (0-100)
Equal and fair treatment
Consistent marking standards
Immediate reporting of issues to the module leader

The module leader must ensure marks are scrutinised through double marking or internal moderation. For modules contributing to final awards, a sample must be sent to an external examiner. After scrutiny, the module leader prepares marks, gets sign-off from the Director of Education, and submits mark sheets to the Module Exam Board (MEB). Late submission rules, penalties, and extenuating circumstances must be applied correctly.

This process ensures fairness, consistency, and adherence to academic standards in marking and scrutiny.

Rule
Responsibilities of the Module Examination Board (MEB)

The MEB has the responsibility for ensuring that assessment marks are valid, reliable, and uphold required standards for progression and credits.

The MEB must:

Uphold academic regulations
Follow the procedures set out in the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations
Ensure accurate calculation of module marks and address defers and retakes
Ratify final module marks
Endorse progression
Enter final marks into the AGS for transmission to the Programme Examination Board (PEB)

This ensures the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of assessment marks, supporting fair student progression and credit awarding.

Rule
Module Leader Responsibilities and Pass Criteria

The module leader must calculate marks, obtain approval from the Director of Education, and submit marks and lists to the Module Examination Board at least 3 working days before the Module Examination Board meeting.

The 'pass criteria' should be used by the MEB to determine if a student passes a module, which is:

Award		Pass mark for individual summative assessments on modules (Pass Mark)	Overall pass mark required after the weighting of each summative assessment on a module (Overall Pass Mark)	Minimum threshold mark that must be achieved individual summative assessments on a module to be able to pass that module when weighted (qualifying mark)
Taught masters’ degrees e.g. MSc	Postgraduate	50	An overall module mark of 50% or more must be achieved when all the marks from the summative assessments on that module are weighted	A minimum threshold mark of 40% must be achieved in summative assessments to pass the module
Postgraduate diplomas
Postgraduate certificates
Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons	Undergraduate	40	An overall module mark of 40% or more must be achieved when all the marks from the summative assessments on that module are weighted	A minimum threshold mark of 30% must be achieved in summative assessments to pass the module
Bachelors’ degrees
Graduate diplomas
Graduate certificates
Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)

These follow the classifications in the School’s generic assessment criteria at each level, which are built into the AGS.

This ensures timely submission and accurate calculation of marks for MEB review, maintaining academic standards and consistency.

Rule
Criteria for Passing and Failing Modules

Under the pass criteria, a student will fail a module where:

Refer: They pass some summative assessments with a pass mark, but having attained the requisite qualifying mark in others, still do not reach the overall pass mark. In such circumstances, an overall module mark of -1 than the overall module mark must be inputted. Students will be referred for the summative assessment in which they did not receive the qualifying mark in the referral window. If they pass that referral attempt they will be capped at the pass mark and this weighted capped mark will be used with the other summative assessments to determine their overall module mark. If the mark on the referral is less than the qualifying mark, or still does not enable them to reach the overall pass mark, they will fail and have to retake the whole module and all of its summative assessments again. They will have to register for the module and also pay a module fee. This will be their third and final attempt.
Refer: They do not achieve the pass mark in any summative assessments, however, do meet the requisite qualifying mark in all of them. In such circumstances, the overall module mark should be determined and inputted. Students will be referred for all the summative assessments in the referral window. If they pass those referral attempt they will be capped at the pass mark and this weighted capped mark will be used with the other summative assessments to determine their overall module mark. If the mark in a referral is less than the qualifying mark, or does not enable them to reach the overall pass mark, they will fail and have to retake the whole module and all of its summative assessments again. They will have to register for the module and also pay a module fee. This will be their third and final attempt.
Retake: They do not achieve a qualifying mark in a summative assessment. They will not be referred for any assessments. They will fail the module and will have to retake the whole module and all of its summative assessments again. They will have to register for the module and also pay a module fee. They will be capped at the overall pass mark.

Attendance: The only default circumstance in which a student must attend an entire module again is if they are required to retake it. The MEB may, at its discretion, require the student to change mode of study for that module e.g. change from Full-time Blended Learning to Flexible Online Learning. The student will be required to pay a repeat tuition fee.

The MEB also has the discretion to offer attendance to defer or refer students. This will be subject to a discussion with the programme and module leaders, and external examiner. The student will be told the decision, but the final choice will be theirs and they can choose a different mode of study. They will have to pay a repeat tuition fee should they choose to attend.

This ensures students are fairly evaluated and provided consistent opportunities to meet academic standards.

Rule
Attempt Limits for Summative Assessments

A student is allowed a maximum of 3 attempts at a summative assessment: the original attempt and 2 further attempts.

This ensures a balance between providing opportunities for improvement and maintaining academic standards.

Rule
Reassessment of Passed Modules

A student who passes a module cannot retake it to improve the mark. The original mark will be used for progression and the award.

This maintains the integrity of the grading system and ensures fairness in academic progress and awarding.

Rule
Full Credit for Passed Modules

A student who passes a module will receive the full credit value of the module. Partial credits are not awarded.

This ensures straightforward and fair credit allocation, maintaining the integrity of the credit system.

Rule
Substitution of Failed Optional Modules

Students who fail an optional module may apply to the Module Examination Board (MEB) to take another optional module with similar credits as a replacement. The substitute module’s mark will be capped at the pass mark. The total attempts allowed across both modules remain the original attempt plus two more. Core modules cannot be substituted. The MEB will consult programme and module leaders, and its decision is final.

This provides a fair opportunity for students to recover from failing an optional module while maintaining academic standards and consistency.

Rule
Final Project Module Reattempt Regulation

If an undergraduate or postgraduate student fails any summative assessment on their Final Project module, they will only be permitted one further attempt. This one attempt can encompass, depending on what they fail, refers or a whole module retake. For a referral, the student has 3 months to resubmit and is entitled to 2 additional supervision meetings.

This ensures students are given a fair opportunity to improve their performance while maintaining academic standards.

Rule
Extenuating Circumstances

If a student’s extenuating circumstances are accepted by the Extenuating Circumstances Committee (ECC), the Module Examination Board (MEB) may ratify the following:

For late submission: the mark stands, with or without classification.
For extensions: a new submission deadline is set.
For deferred assessment: a deferred assessment is offered.

If an extension or deferral is granted, a mark of 0 with a submission extension/defer should be entered in the Automated Governance System (AGS). Marks will not be capped and the attempt will not be lost. Once the assessment is completed, the actual mark replaces the 0 and is used for calculation, progression, and credits.

This ensures fair handling of extenuating circumstances, allowing students additional time without penalty and maintaining academic integrity.

Rule
Progression Rules for Multi-Level Programmes

On those programmes that have multiple levels/stages, summative assessments on one level are used to determine if a student can move onto take modules at the next level. This is known as ‘progression’. The Module Examination board approves progression as part of its remit. The School’s rules on progressing to the next level on programmes with multiple levels/stages are:

A student must obtain a minimum of 100 credits on a level/stage including any prerequisites, by passing modules, to progress onto the next level. No partial credit is given for modules. A student required to retake a module may take up to 20 extra credits in addition to the usual credits they can take.
If a student does not attain more than 100 credits and/or any necessary prerequisites, they will not be permitted to progress. They will retake just the failed modules, subject to the maximum registration period, under these regulations.
If a student does not attain more than 60 credits, without having extenuating circumstances, they will be excluded from the programme. Depending on their programme, they may be eligible for an exit award under these regulations.

These rules ensure fair progression based on academic achievement, while providing support and clear pathways for students to advance or exit with qualifications. The School offers extensive support, including:

Programme and module assistance
Virtual learning environment access
Personal Academic Tutors (PATs)
Supervisors
Student Success Team

Further information is available in the Student Protection Policies, including the Student Resources, Support, and Wellbeing Policy and the Learning Support Plans and Reasonable Adjustments Policy.

Rule
Condonement of Level 4 Credits

The Module Examination Board may condone up to 40 credits at Level 4, allowing students to earn credit for a failed module if:

The module is failed
The module is optional
The student received a qualifying mark (30-39)

This provides a safety net for students, allowing progression despite minor failings in optional modules, while maintaining academic standards.

Programme Qualifications: Classification and Award Criteria

Title

Rule
Authority of the Programme Examination Board (PEB)

The PEBs has been delegated authority by the Academic Board to:

Determine programme awards and classifications.
Ensure awards are valid, reliable, and credible, meeting sector standards.
Use ratified module profiles from the MEB to apply the award classification algorithm.
Decide on withdrawals and expulsions.
Ensure compliance with academic regulations.
Ratify exit awards.
Consult external examiners and stakeholders.
Consider industry and sector trends.
Maintain consistency and standards over time

This ensures a structured and standardised approach to conferring awards, upholding academic integrity and sector standards.

Rule
Award Classification Process

If a student has earned the required credits for a programme, their final classification is determined as follows:

A. The programme leader applies the relevant award classification algorithm to the student's ratified marks, calculating the credit-weighted mean mark. The School uses three algorithms:

Bachelors with honours (e.g., BSc Hons) and Bachelors degrees
Multi-level programmes
Single-level programmes

B. The Director of Education checks and approves the application of the algorithm before the programme leader transmits to the Programme Examination Board (PEB).

C. The PEB verifies and ratifies the programme leader's classification, making necessary changes. Exit awards can be considered if listed in the programme specification.

D. Once awards and classifications are ratified, the processes in the Examination Boards and Academic Appeal Regulations are applied.

This process ensures accurate, fair, and transparent award classifications, maintaining academic integrity and compliance with standards.

Rule
Use of RPL and RPE Credits

Students admitted with Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and Experience (RPE) credits can use these for final qualification, within the limits set by academic regulations. RPL and RPE marks are not used in final award classification algorithms, resulting in the classification being based on fewer credits than usual. Exception: RPL credits from the School will be included in the overall marks algorithm.

This maintains the integrity of award classifications while allowing prior learning and experience to contribute to qualification attainment.

Rule
Award Classification Algorithms

The algorithms are:

Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons; Bachelors’ degrees

The overall mark for your degree will be calculated by combining your marks from Level 5 and Level 6 modules as follows:

Level 5 Contribution (33%):
- The overall mark from Level 5 is based on the marks from your best 5 modules (out of a possible 6), weighted by the credit values of those modules.
- This will be calculated as the weighted average of your best 5 modules, with each module's mark multiplied by its credit value.
- The Level 5 contribution will then account for 33% of your final degree mark.

Level 5 Contribution=0.33×((∑(Module Mark×Module Credits)best 5 modules)/120)

Level 6 Contribution (67%):

- The overall mark from Level 6 is based on all modules taken at Level 6, weighted by the credit values of those modules.
- This will be calculated as the weighted average of all your Level 6 modules, again multiplying each module's mark by its credit value.
- The Level 6 contribution will account for 67% of your final degree mark.

Level 6 Contribution=0.67×((∑(Module Mark×Module Credits)all Level 6 modules/120)

Final Overall Mark

Your final overall mark will be a weighted average of the Level 5 and Level 6 contributions:

Overall Mark = Level 5 Contribution + Level 6 Contribution

Where:

Level 5 Contribution accounts for 33% of your final mark,
Level 6 Contribution accounts for 67% of your final mark.

All other programmes (multi-level)

Overall Mark=∑(Module Mark×Module Credits )best 5 modules/120

All other programmes (single- level)

Overall Mark= ∑(Module Mark×Module Credits)/Total Credits in Degree

These algorithms ensure standardised, fair, and transparent classification across all programmes.

Rule
Classifications Bands

All marks will be rounded to the nearest whole number with:

0.1-0.4	Rounded-down
0.5-09	Rounded-up

The classification for Taught masters’ degrees e.g. MSc, Postgraduate diplomas, and Postgraduate certificates are:

70 – 100%	Distinction
60 – 69%	Merit
50 – 59%	Pass
0 – 49%	Fail

The classification for Bachelors’ degrees with honours e.g. BSc Hons and Bachelors’ degrees are:

70 – 100%	1st Class Honours
60 – 69%	2nd Class Honours Upper
50 – 59%	2nd Class Honours Lower
40 – 49%	3rd Class Honours
0 - 39%	Fail

The classification for Graduate diplomas, Graduate certificates, Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE), Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE) are:

70 – 100%	Distinction
60 – 69%	Merit
40 – 59%	Pass
0 – 39%	Fail

Classification bands provide a clear, standardised framework for awarding final classifications, ensuring consistency and fairness.

Rule
Programme Exclusion Criteria

The Programme Examination Board decides on exclusions except for breach of contract, fitness to study, and presumed withdrawal, which are handled by the Executive Committee (see Exclusion Regulations). Students may be excluded for:

Irredeemable failures: Failing more than half the credits for their level/year without extenuating circumstances.
Excessive assessment failures: Reaching the maximum number of assessment attempts and credits.
Exceeding the registration period: Failing to meet requirements within the maximum period.
Academic misconduct: In some cases, being found guilty by an Academic Misconduct Panel.
Fitness to practice: Being unable to meet programme requirements due to personal actions (see Fitness to Practise Procedure).
Breach of contract: In some cases, breaching contract terms, e.g. non-payment of fees.
Presumed withdrawal: In some cases, not engaging or attending for more than 4 weeks.

These criteria ensure fair and consistent decisions on exclusions, maintaining academic standards and contractual obligations.

Compensation Credit

Title
Rule Credit Compensation for End-of-Programme Shortfall If a student is short up to 20 credits for an award due to failed modules, the Programme Examination Board may award credits by compensation if: The student failed an optional module. A genuine attempt to pass was made. Extenuating circumstances were successfully applied for. Evidence suggests the student was likely to pass. This decision is based on academic judgement of the student's overall profile and learning outcomes. This allows flexibility in awarding qualifications, recognising students' efforts and potential despite minor shortfalls.
Rule No Right of Appeal Students cannot appeal the Programme Examination Board's decision not to award credit by compensation This maintains the integrity of academic judgement and finality in decisions on credit compensation.
Rule Not Module-Specific The School does not award compensated credit for individual modules. Failed modules will be considered unmarked. This preserves the integrity of module assessments and ensures academic standards are upheld.
Rule Impact of Compensated Credit on Degree Classification Compensated credit is not graded, so the degree classification algorithm may use fewer credits than usual. This ensures transparency in how compensated credits affect the calculation of degree classifications.
Rule Recording Compensation Decisions All compensation awards must be recorded with justifying reasons in the Programme Examination Board meeting minutes This ensures transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

Title

Rule
Credit Compensation for End-of-Programme Shortfall

If a student is short up to 20 credits for an award due to failed modules, the Programme Examination Board may award credits by compensation if:

The student failed an optional module.
A genuine attempt to pass was made.
Extenuating circumstances were successfully applied for.
Evidence suggests the student was likely to pass.

This decision is based on academic judgement of the student's overall profile and learning outcomes.

This allows flexibility in awarding qualifications, recognising students' efforts and potential despite minor shortfalls.

Rule
No Right of Appeal

Students cannot appeal the Programme Examination Board's decision not to award credit by compensation

This maintains the integrity of academic judgement and finality in decisions on credit compensation.

Rule
Not Module-Specific

The School does not award compensated credit for individual modules. Failed modules will be considered unmarked.

This preserves the integrity of module assessments and ensures academic standards are upheld.

Rule
Impact of Compensated Credit on Degree Classification

Compensated credit is not graded, so the degree classification algorithm may use fewer credits than usual.

This ensures transparency in how compensated credits affect the calculation of degree classifications.

Rule
Recording Compensation Decisions

All compensation awards must be recorded with justifying reasons in the Programme Examination Board meeting minutes

This ensures transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

Issuance of Assessment Results, Academic Transcripts, Certificates, and the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)

Title
Rule Process at PEB Meeting At a Programme Examination Board (PEB) meeting, the PEB Chair is responsible for: Noting minutes and actions Accurately recording all lists, including conferment, exit awards, and exclusions Sharing action lists and sending them to appropriate staff Tracking progress on actions Entering and processing final awards and decisions into the AGS Reporting minutes and actions at the next PEB These duties ensure organised, accurate, and efficient management of the PEB process, upholding academic standards.
Rule Quality Assurance and Accuracy of Entries After the PEB ratifies awards and classifications and uploads them to the AGS, programme and course leaders must check and confirm the accuracy of these for the purposes of issuing transcripts and certificates. The Director of Education will verify this before they are used to produce transcripts and certificates. This ensures accurate records and proper validation before issuing official transcripts and certificates, maintaining academic integrity and correctness.
Rule Informing Students After the Director of Education's approval, students will receive an email to log onto the AGS to check decisions, transcripts, and certificates. They may contact the School with any questions. This ensures students are informed of their results and have access to official documents while providing a channel for inquiries.
Rule Transcript Access Conditions Students can access their transcripts only after fulfilling contract conditions, including fee payment and compliance with academic regulations and policies. This ensures students meet all contractual and academic obligations before receiving official records.
Definition Transcript Definition A transcript is not a certificate or an award. This clarifies the distinct purposes of transcripts and official certificates, ensuring students understand the difference
Rule Transcript Content The transcript uses a standard layout, including: Student name Student ID number Programme of study Mode of study List of passed modules, including RPL, with marks and grades List of any condoned and compensated credits and their levels This ensures transcripts provide consistent, comprehensive information about a student's academic record.
Rule Transcript Module Information The transcript will list all studied and passed modules, detailing: Module title Credit value FHEQ level Semester studied Mark and classification achieved (that contributed to the classification) This provides a clear, standardised record of a student's academic achievements.
Rule RPL and RPE Credits in Final Transcript Generally, RPL and RPE marks are not used in final award classification algorithms. The final transcript will list RPL and RPE modules without marks or classifications: Module title Credit value FHEQ level Award basis (RPL or RPE) Exception: RPL credits from the School are included in the overall marks algorithm, so their marks and classifications will be listed in the transcript. This maintains transparency in awarding credits while ensuring fairness in the classification process.
Rule Issuance of Award Certificates The School will issue a certificate to all students conferred an award by the PEB, including: The School logo and name Preamble Student's name from the AGS Programme title Conferred award Classification Award conferment date President's signature The certificate will be mailed to the student's registered address on the AGS. A replacement for a lost or damaged certificate can be requested for a fee. Please see the Transcript, Certificate, and Reference Requests Policy. This ensures students receive an official record of their award, maintaining standardisation and accessibility.
Rule Recording Student Achievements and Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) The School will maintain a record of study on student profiles, documenting extra-curricular activities, transcripts, and awards. The Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) will also record achievements and be updated once awards are confirmed. This provides a comprehensive and up-to-date record of student achievements, facilitating future academic and professional opportunities.

Title

Rule
Process at PEB Meeting

At a Programme Examination Board (PEB) meeting, the PEB Chair is responsible for:

Noting minutes and actions
Accurately recording all lists, including conferment, exit awards, and exclusions
Sharing action lists and sending them to appropriate staff
Tracking progress on actions
Entering and processing final awards and decisions into the AGS
Reporting minutes and actions at the next PEB

These duties ensure organised, accurate, and efficient management of the PEB process, upholding academic standards.

Rule
Quality Assurance and Accuracy of Entries

After the PEB ratifies awards and classifications and uploads them to the AGS, programme and course leaders must check and confirm the accuracy of these for the purposes of issuing transcripts and certificates. The Director of Education will verify this before they are used to produce transcripts and certificates.

This ensures accurate records and proper validation before issuing official transcripts and certificates, maintaining academic integrity and correctness.

Rule
Informing Students

After the Director of Education's approval, students will receive an email to log onto the AGS to check decisions, transcripts, and certificates. They may contact the School with any questions.

This ensures students are informed of their results and have access to official documents while providing a channel for inquiries.

Rule
Transcript Access Conditions

Students can access their transcripts only after fulfilling contract conditions, including fee payment and compliance with academic regulations and policies.

This ensures students meet all contractual and academic obligations before receiving official records.

Definition
Transcript Definition

A transcript is not a certificate or an award.

This clarifies the distinct purposes of transcripts and official certificates, ensuring students understand the difference

Rule
Transcript Content

The transcript uses a standard layout, including:

Student name
Student ID number
Programme of study
Mode of study
List of passed modules, including RPL, with marks and grades
List of any condoned and compensated credits and their levels

This ensures transcripts provide consistent, comprehensive information about a student's academic record.

Rule
Transcript Module Information

The transcript will list all studied and passed modules, detailing:

Module title
Credit value
FHEQ level
Semester studied
Mark and classification achieved (that contributed to the classification)

This provides a clear, standardised record of a student's academic achievements.

Rule
RPL and RPE Credits in Final Transcript

Generally, RPL and RPE marks are not used in final award classification algorithms. The final transcript will list RPL and RPE modules without marks or classifications:

Module title
Credit value
FHEQ level
Award basis (RPL or RPE)

Exception: RPL credits from the School are included in the overall marks algorithm, so their marks and classifications will be listed in the transcript.

This maintains transparency in awarding credits while ensuring fairness in the classification process.

Rule
Issuance of Award Certificates

The School will issue a certificate to all students conferred an award by the PEB, including:

The School logo and name
Preamble
Student's name from the AGS
Programme title
Conferred award
Classification
Award conferment date
President's signature

The certificate will be mailed to the student's registered address on the AGS. A replacement for a lost or damaged certificate can be requested for a fee. Please see the Transcript, Certificate, and Reference Requests Policy.

This ensures students receive an official record of their award, maintaining standardisation and accessibility.

Rule
Recording Student Achievements and Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)

The School will maintain a record of study on student profiles, documenting extra-curricular activities, transcripts, and awards. The Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) will also record achievements and be updated once awards are confirmed.

This provides a comprehensive and up-to-date record of student achievements, facilitating future academic and professional opportunities.

Eligibility for Exit Awards

Title
Rule Ratifying Exit Awards The Programme Examination Board may ratify an exit award if a student: Fails to meet the requirements for a full award Meets the requirements for the exit award The exit award is validated in the programme specification This ensures students receive recognition for their completed work, even if they don't meet the criteria for a full award.
Rule Exit Award Restrictions The School cannot offer an exit award if the student intends to intermit and return to the programme later. This ensures exit awards are only granted to students who are not continuing their studies, maintaining the award's integrity.
Rule Conditions for Exit Awards Acceptance of an exit award requires the student to withdraw from the programme. Exit awards will not be conferred, listed in the pass register, or uploaded to the AGS until the student confirms in writing they have either: Withdrawn from the programme, or Transferred to another programme while retaining enough specific credits for an exit award. This ensures that exit awards are granted only to those who are not continuing their studies, preserving the programme's integrity.
Rule Classification of Exit Awards The relevant award classification algorithm and classification bands from this regulation will determine the exit award classification. This ensures consistent and fair classification for exit awards in line with established standards.
Rule Re-enrolment After Accepting an Exit Award A student who withdrew and accepted an exit award may return to the original programme: Within 12 months: With Programme Examination Board approval, the exit award will be rescinded, and the student re-enrolled. After 12 months: The student must reapply, and previously earned credits will be transferred under the RPL and RPE Regulations. This provides a clear pathway for students to return to their original programme while maintaining academic standards. Where an exit award must be rescinded, the School must reflect this in the register via the Academic Governance System (AGS).

Title

Rule
Ratifying Exit Awards

The Programme Examination Board may ratify an exit award if a student:

Fails to meet the requirements for a full award
Meets the requirements for the exit award
The exit award is validated in the programme specification

This ensures students receive recognition for their completed work, even if they don't meet the criteria for a full award.

Rule
Exit Award Restrictions

The School cannot offer an exit award if the student intends to intermit and return to the programme later.

This ensures exit awards are only granted to students who are not continuing their studies, maintaining the award's integrity.

Rule
Conditions for Exit Awards

Acceptance of an exit award requires the student to withdraw from the programme. Exit awards will not be conferred, listed in the pass register, or uploaded to the AGS until the student confirms in writing they have either:

Withdrawn from the programme, or
Transferred to another programme while retaining enough specific credits for an exit award.

This ensures that exit awards are granted only to those who are not continuing their studies, preserving the programme's integrity.

Rule
Classification of Exit Awards

The relevant award classification algorithm and classification bands from this regulation will determine the exit award classification.

This ensures consistent and fair classification for exit awards in line with established standards.

Rule
Re-enrolment After Accepting an Exit Award

A student who withdrew and accepted an exit award may return to the original programme:

Within 12 months: With Programme Examination Board approval, the exit award will be rescinded, and the student re-enrolled.
After 12 months: The student must reapply, and previously earned credits will be transferred under the RPL and RPE Regulations.

This provides a clear pathway for students to return to their original programme while maintaining academic standards. Where an exit award must be rescinded, the School must reflect this in the register via the Academic Governance System (AGS).

Criteria for Aegrotat Awards

Title
Definition Aegrotat Award The School confers an Aegrotat Award when a student: Has a permanent severe illness preventing completion; Earned at least 2/3 of the credits; and Would normally have completed and achieved the award This ensures unforeseen severe illness does not unfairly prevent students from receiving recognition for their academic efforts.
Rule Criteria for Recommending an Aegrotat Award The Programme Examination Board can recommend an Aegrotat Award only if all options for extenuating circumstances and intermission have been fully explored and exhausted. This ensures that all possible measures to support the student have been considered before granting an Aegrotat Award.
Rule Review Process for Aegrotat Awards The Programme Examination Board must carefully review medical records and supporting documents in a meeting before recommending an Aegrotat Award. Meeting notes must record the decision and reasons. This ensures thorough review and documentation, maintaining transparency and integrity in the decision process.
Rule Assurance for Aegrotat Awards The Programme Examination Board must confirm that, barring unfortunate circumstances, the student would have met the requirements for their original award based on previous assessments. This ensures the Aegrotat Award is granted only to students who would have successfully completed their programme under normal conditions.
Rule Classification of Aegrotat Awards Aegrotat awards are not classified. This maintains the distinct status of Aegrotat awards, differentiating them from regular classified awards.
Rule Acceptance of Aegrotat Awards A student recommended for an Aegrotat award must: Confirm in writing (if medically possible) their acceptance Acknowledge they are waiving further assessment rights This ensures the student understands and agrees to the terms of accepting the Aegrotat award.
Rule Approval Process for Aegrotat Awards The recommendation for an Aegrotat award, with supporting documentation, will be sent to the Academic Board for approval and then processed by the Director of Education. This ensures a thorough review and formal approval process, maintaining academic standards and compliance.

Title

Definition
Aegrotat Award

The School confers an Aegrotat Award when a student:

Has a permanent severe illness preventing completion;
Earned at least 2/3 of the credits; and
Would normally have completed and achieved the award

This ensures unforeseen severe illness does not unfairly prevent students from receiving recognition for their academic efforts.

Rule
Criteria for Recommending an Aegrotat Award

The Programme Examination Board can recommend an Aegrotat Award only if all options for extenuating circumstances and intermission have been fully explored and exhausted.

This ensures that all possible measures to support the student have been considered before granting an Aegrotat Award.

Rule
Review Process for Aegrotat Awards

The Programme Examination Board must carefully review medical records and supporting documents in a meeting before recommending an Aegrotat Award. Meeting notes must record the decision and reasons.

This ensures thorough review and documentation, maintaining transparency and integrity in the decision process.

Rule
Assurance for Aegrotat Awards

The Programme Examination Board must confirm that, barring unfortunate circumstances, the student would have met the requirements for their original award based on previous assessments.

This ensures the Aegrotat Award is granted only to students who would have successfully completed their programme under normal conditions.

Rule
Classification of Aegrotat Awards

Aegrotat awards are not classified.

This maintains the distinct status of Aegrotat awards, differentiating them from regular classified awards.

Rule
Acceptance of Aegrotat Awards

A student recommended for an Aegrotat award must:

Confirm in writing (if medically possible) their acceptance
Acknowledge they are waiving further assessment rights

This ensures the student understands and agrees to the terms of accepting the Aegrotat award.

Rule
Approval Process for Aegrotat Awards

The recommendation for an Aegrotat award, with supporting documentation, will be sent to the Academic Board for approval and then processed by the Director of Education.

This ensures a thorough review and formal approval process, maintaining academic standards and compliance.

Posthumous Award Procedures

Title
Rule Qualifying Conditions If a student passes away, the School may confer a posthumous award to recognise their accomplishments. The Programme Examination Board recommends posthumous awards, which are then approved by the Academic Board. The rationale must be documented in the student's record and the minutes of both boards. This honours the student's achievements while ensuring a formal, documented process.
Rule Classification If all requirements were completed and passed, the award is classified as usual. Otherwise, it is classified as an Aegrotat award. This ensures the student's achievements are appropriately recognised and classified.

Title

Rule
Qualifying Conditions

If a student passes away, the School may confer a posthumous award to recognise their accomplishments. The Programme Examination Board recommends posthumous awards, which are then approved by the Academic Board. The rationale must be documented in the student's record and the minutes of both boards.

This honours the student's achievements while ensuring a formal, documented process.

Rule
Classification

If all requirements were completed and passed, the award is classified as usual. Otherwise, it is classified as an Aegrotat award.

This ensures the student's achievements are appropriately recognised and classified.

Metrics and KPIs

The following metrics will be measured and regularly reviewed as key performance indicators for the School to ensure the effectiveness of this policy and associated operations.

Title
Timely Communication of Award Decisions Notify 95% of students of their award decisions within 10 working days after PEB ratification. Prompt communication ensures students are informed of their academic status, aiding in future planning.
Accuracy of Award Classifications Achieve less than 2% error rate in final award classifications ratified by the Programme Examination Board (PEB) each academic year. Accurate award classifications maintain the credibility of the School's qualifications and uphold academic integrity.
Board Member Training Provide annual training on regulations, best practices, and new guidelines for 100% of Examination Board members. Ongoing training ensures board members are well-informed and capable of making sound decisions, enhancing the effectiveness of the boards.
Improvement in Top Classification Rates Achieve a 2% year-on-year increase in the number of students obtaining top classifications (e.g. First-Class Honours, Distinctions) across all programmes. Increasing top classifications indicates enhanced student performance and effective academic support.
Median Mark Increase Achieve a 2% increase in the median mark of final-year students across all programmes each academic year. Improving median marks reflects overall better student outcomes and fairer assessment practices.

Title

Timely Communication of Award Decisions
Notify 95% of students of their award decisions within 10 working days after PEB ratification.
Prompt communication ensures students are informed of their academic status, aiding in future planning.

Accuracy of Award Classifications
Achieve less than 2% error rate in final award classifications ratified by the Programme Examination Board (PEB) each academic year.
Accurate award classifications maintain the credibility of the School's qualifications and uphold academic integrity.

Board Member Training
Provide annual training on regulations, best practices, and new guidelines for 100% of Examination Board members.
Ongoing training ensures board members are well-informed and capable of making sound decisions, enhancing the effectiveness of the boards.

Improvement in Top Classification Rates
Achieve a 2% year-on-year increase in the number of students obtaining top classifications (e.g. First-Class Honours, Distinctions) across all programmes.
Increasing top classifications indicates enhanced student performance and effective academic support.

Median Mark Increase
Achieve a 2% increase in the median mark of final-year students across all programmes each academic year.
Improving median marks reflects overall better student outcomes and fairer assessment practices.