New Programme and Module Approval and Modification Regulations

The School’s programmes at all levels can lead to one of the following undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications: 

The School adheres to the OfS’ principle that ‘the award of higher education qualifications is based on the demonstrated achievement of outcomes rather than years of study’. (OfS, ‘Sector-Recognised Standards') and that this can be shown through the attainment of the credits and outcomes in the OfS sector-recognised standards.

The Programme Examination Board can also award one of these awards as an exit award provided that a student otherwise successfully attains the required number of credits and meets the relevant descriptors for that award. Please see Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations.

Students demonstrate their attainment of credits and outcomes according to OfS sector-recognised standards through:

• Programmes: Defined as a series of approved teaching and learning activities within a subject discipline, leading to a School award. Programmes consist of modules and are structured to meet the OfS standards for credits and descriptors.
• Modules: Specific units of learning at a set level, with defined content, credit volume, learning outcomes, and assessments. Modules contribute to the credits needed for qualification and progression.

The School adheres to OfS qualification descriptors, SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, and relevant Subject Matter Benchmarks. Descriptors include:

• Knowledge and Understanding
• Intellectual Skills
• Technical/Practical Skills
• Professional/Transferable Skills

Students must achieve the required credits through summative assessments for progression and qualification, as detailed in the Module, Progression, and Award Regulations, Academic Standards Regulations, Credit Accumulation Regulations, and Modes of Study Regulations. These standards ensure compliance with external requirements.

All undergraduate and postgraduate programmes must satisfy three approval rules before they can be marketed and delivered:

1. Strategic Approval: Submission of a business case meeting strategic approval rules to the Academic Board (the coordinating body) at least 12 months before the proposed start date. The expectation is that relevant stakeholders (e.g., faculty, industry partners, student representatives) will be engaged. The Academic Board will then submit this to seek approval from the Board of Governors.

2. Operational Approval: Upon Board of Governors' strategic approval, submission of an 'operational fulfilment document' (OFD) to the Academic Board. This document should show compliance with operational approval rules, which the Academic Board will forward to the Executive Board for approval.

3. Academic Approval: If the OFD is approved by the Executive Board, preparation and submission of the detailed academic documentation to the Academic Board to satisfy the academic approval rules. These documents should include:

   • The business case and OFD showing how recommendations have been addressed
   • Draft programme specification with awards complying with the School's Academic Regulations
   • All module specifications
   • CVs of the programme leader and all staff
   • The outcome of stakeholder engagement
   • External experts' report
   • Any other supporting documents

The Academic Board will review these documents to ensure they meet academic approval rules too, before the programme can be marketed and delivered.

The Academic Board, as the senior academic authority, or its delegated committees or individuals, is responsible for coordinating all stages of programme approval.

A programme with strategic and operational approval but not yet academic approval for Stage 4 may be advertised, subject to the Academic Board’s approval and any conditions it sets. All promotional materials must include the statement: “This programme is currently under development and is subject to final approval. For further information, please contact the Admissions Team at admissions@lsi.ac.uk.”

A new programme proposal must be initiated by a development team, led by a designated lead, and submitted as a full business plan to the Academic Board at least 12 months before the proposed start date. The business plan must show the criteria outlined in the Strategic Approval Rules below. The Academic Board will forward the plan to the Board of Governors for consideration. The programme will only be approved if the following conditions are met:

• Alignment with the School's strategic plan
• Market Demand
• Market Needs
• Financial viability and market sustainability
• Market Sustainability
• Delivery of value for money for students
• Competition 

The proposed programme should align with the School's mission and strategic plan.

The Board of Governors will consider:

Q1: How does the programme align with the School’s mission, purpose, and long-term strategic goals on forging future technology leaders and fostering a culture of research and innovation?
Q2: How will it support the School's strategic objectives for growth and development?
Q3: How does it integrate with the School's existing portfolio and enhance current offerings?
Q4: How would it positively or negatively affect our overall market positioning, reputation, and prestige?

Proposals for new programmes must convincingly demonstrate that the programme is needed and likely to attract potential students.

The Board of Governors will consider

Q1: What target audience or demographics will this programme appeal to?
Q2: What market research demonstrates demand for this programme?
Q3: Does the programme meet an unfulfilled need in the market, making it an innovative offering?

Proposals for new programmes must convincingly demonstrate that it is needed, addressing the needs of a diverse group of potential students and the wider community.

The Board of Governors will consider

Q1: What ongoing or emerging societal or industry challenges will this programme address?
Q2: How does it align with current trends in higher education?
Q3: Can it be offered flexibly (like part-time, online, or evening classes) to make it more cost-effective or accessible for a diverse range of students?

Proposals for new programmes must ensure the institution's financial viability and scale justify its provision resource demands.

The Board of Governors will consider:

Q1: For this programme, what is the projected enrolment and total annual tuition fee income, and how was this forecasted?
Q2: What is the break-even point (profit threshold) in terms of student numbers?
Q3: How will it be marketed and positioned to ensure it stands out in the education market?

Proposals must demonstrate that the demand for the programme is likely to sustain over the foreseeable future and justify the necessary resources for delivering an exceptional educational experience.

The Board of Governors will consider

Q1: For how long is there likely to be a demand for this programme (sustained demand)?
Q2: How will the programme ensure ongoing relevance and adaptability (resilience)?

Proposed new programmes at the School may only be approved when they can demonstrate a positive value for money for the students.

The Board of Governors will consider:

Q1: How does this programme equip students with the critical skills and knowledge that are currently in high demand within the job market?
Q2: What is the expected return on investment for students in terms of potential salary increases and job opportunities upon graduation?
Q3: What specific certifications, licences, or professional advancements does it prepare students for, and how does it impact their career trajectory?
Q4: Will the School's existing academic and career support services enable the target students to succeed during their studies and after graduation?

Proposals for new programmes must demonstrate the School's competitive advantage and chances of standing out.

The Board of Governors will consider

Q1: What does the competitive landscape look like for this type of programme? What are the strengths and weaknesses of competing programmes?
Q2: How does it compare with similar competing programmes by other institutions (tuition fees, content, and delivery structure)?
Q3: How can it leverage the School's strengths and expertise and maintain a competitive edge (market advantage)?

If the Board of Governors approves Stage 1, the development team must prepare an Operational Fulfilment Document (OFD) and submit it to the Academic Board. The Academic Board will then forward the OFD to the Executive Committee for review. The OFD assesses whether the School can effectively deliver the proposed programme.

Proposals for new programmes must ensure that the School has the capacity to develop a well-defined programme specification that is fit for purpose.

The Executive Committee will consider:

Q1: Who will the programme development team consist of? Do they have appropriate expertise, experience and qualifications?
Q2: Can potential students and employers be consulted and included in the programme development team?
Q3: Is the project timeline (schedule) feasible?

The School's infrastructure should have the capacity to support delivering the proposed programme while maintaining an excellent experience for all existing and new students.

The Executive Committee will consider:

Q1: Can the programme be effectively delivered using the School's AGS platform? If not, what measures will be taken to ensure high-quality teaching and learning?
Q2: How does it fit within the current capacity of our School in terms of enrolment and class sizes?
Q3: For in-person delivery, are there sufficient physical resources available to support the delivery of the programme, including classrooms, labs, and IT equipment?
Q4: Are there plans to update or upgrade the infrastructure to keep the programme relevant over time?
Q5: Are the School's administrative systems equipped to handle the new programme's needs for admissions, scheduling, and student support?

The School should have the human resources to deliver the programme with high standards, quality and student experience.

The Executive Committee will consider:

Q1: What are the academic faculty requirements for teaching the programme?
Q2: What are the staffing needs for administrative support and student services (such as counselling, career services, and PAT)?
Q3: What additional staff recruitment is necessary for this programme beyond the School's current capacity?
Q4: Does the School have the capacity and resources to train and support the new staff?

Proposals for new programmes must ensure that the provision of the programme by the School will be financially viable and sustainable.

The Executive Committee will consider:

Q1: What is the estimated total of the variable costs for delivering the programme?
Q2: Is there a plan to manage unexpected costs or financial challenges arising from the programme's delivery?
Q3: What steps will be taken to keep the programme financially viable long-term?
Q4: What are the financial risks, and does the School have enough reserves to handle the worst-case scenario?

The School should be able to deliver the programme at an appropriate scale.

The Executive Committee will consider:

Q1: What is the projected growth for this programme, and how does it fit with the School's financial goals?
Q2: If demand surpasses expectations, does the School have a scalable model for delivering the programme?
Q3: Can the School maintain the programme's quality and standards if it scales up quickly due to high demand?
Q4: Will this programme necessitate changes to the School's existing contingency plans for operational risks, such as staffing shortages or technological failures?

Once the Executive Committee approves the Operational Fulfilment Document (OFD), the development team must prepare the required documentation for academic approval by the Academic Board. This documentation should align with academic regulations, including the Academic Standards Regulations and Credit Accumulation Regulations, the School’s Learning and Teaching Strategy, the Teaching and Learning Policy, and sector good practice. The documentation should include, amongst other documents:

• The business case and OFD, Stage 1 and 2 approval documents, and how recommendations from the Boards have been addressed.
• Draft programme specification with awards compliant with Academic Standards Regulations and other academic regulations.
• All module specifications.
• CVs of the programme leader and all staff.
• Outcomes of stakeholder engagement.
• External experts’ report.
• Any other supporting documentation needed for approval.

The programme must adhere to the School's regulations and policies, which are based on regulatory requirements. The programme specification should include:

• The primary award and a clear title reflecting the programme’s subject matter.
• A concise description of the programme.
• The HECoS (Higher Education Classification of Subjects) code for the subject.
• The required level and credits for the primary award, including coherent pathways and any exit awards, as per the Academic Standards Regulations, Credit Accumulation Regulations, and Modes of Study Regulations.
• The total notional hours for the primary award.
• The awarding title, awarding body, teaching institute, and accreditations.
• The language of instruction.
• Reference to the applicable School Descriptor and how the programme’s aims and outcomes align with the OfS’ qualification descriptors, SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, and relevant Subject Matter Benchmarks.
• A list of relevant modules, indicating whether they are core or optional, their learning outcomes, credit values, teaching methods, and semester of delivery.
• The graduate attributes.
• Teaching and assessment strategies, including School assessment criteria and formats.
• Entry criteria for the programme.
• Available cohort entry points and all modes of study.
• Details of the programme leader.
• Dates of programme approval and reapproval.

The programme development team must submit CVs as part of the overall documentation.

The documentation must detail engagement with internal and external stakeholders, including students, employers, and professional bodies. It should explain which stakeholders were involved, the methods of engagement, the outcomes, and how feedback influenced programme development.

At this stage, the draft programme and module specifications, CVs, and other relevant materials must be reviewed by an external programme assessor. The assessor should be an experienced academic from another higher education institution with relevant expertise. They will assess whether the programme meets the FHEQ and OfS Sector-recognised standards. The assessor must declare no conflicts of interest and will be paid as per the School's regulations. Information on their role and responsibilities will be available on the School's website. The Academic Board will annually audit external assessors and analyse their reports for the Board of Governors.

External assessors must be nominated promptly to allow sufficient time for review. The Academic Board must approve these nominations from the programme development team based on the appointment criteria outlined in the regulations. Once approved, the team can send the draft programme and module specifications, CVs, external assessment instructions, and other materials to the external assessor. The assessor’s completed form should be submitted as part of academic approval. 

The School uses the following criteria for appointing external assessors and examiners from academia, industry, business, and the professions:

• Fluency in English.
• Knowledge of UK HR sector reference points for academic standards, quality assurance, and enhancement.
• Expertise in the relevant fields covered by the module or programme.
• Relevant academic qualifications or substantial professional experience at the level of the qualification.
• Standing, credibility, and broad experience in the discipline.
• Familiarity with expected student achievement standards.
• Awareness of current developments in curriculum design and delivery.
• Experience in designing and implementing assessments.
• Experience in enhancing the student learning experience.
• Compliance with any applicable criteria set by PSRBs.

The School must not appoint external assessors or examiners who fall into the following categories:

• Current employees of the School or members of the Board of Governors.
• Current or former staff or students of the School, unless five years have passed since their last association and all students they taught have completed their programmes.
• Individuals with a close professional, contractual, or personal relationship with staff or students involved with the programme.
• Individuals who could significantly influence the future of students on the programme.
• More than one external examiner from the same teaching team at the same institution.
• Those involved in reciprocal arrangements with similar programmes at other institutions.

Former members of validation panels are generally not recommended as initial external examiners, as they may lack the impartiality needed. If a former panel member is nominated, a clear rationale must be provided.

External assessors and examiners must not serve as consultants on programme design or participate in review panels for the programmes they are examining. They may, however, be consulted on proposed modifications to existing modules or programmes.

If an external assessor or examiner identifies a potential conflict of interest after appointment, they must notify the Chair of the Academic Board immediately. If the conflict cannot be resolved, they should resign from their appointment.

Once all documentation, including the expert report, is complete, it will be reviewed by the Academic Board. The programme development team will be invited to attend and discuss the documentation in detail.

The programme design must comply with sector-recognised standards and regulations and those of the School.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Does the programme and its modules fully align with the latest FHEQ requirements, qualification descriptors, CATs credits, SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, and Subject Benchmarks?
Q2: Is the programme design aligned with the accreditation requirements of any relevant professional or academic bodies?
Q3: Are the School's academic regulations and rules followed within the programme’s framework?
Q4: How will the programme ensure continuous alignment with industry and academic standards?

The programme specification should have clear and appropriate learning outcomes, preparing the students for fulfilling and sustainable career opportunities.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Does the programme specification have clear and measurable learning outcomes?
Q2: Does the programme's title and level appropriately reflective its content and learning outcomes?
Q3: Do the learning outcomes integrate the School’s graduate attributes (skills and qualities)?
Q4: Do the learning outcomes prepare students for a broad range of careers?
Q5: Are there opportunities for extracurricular activities, internships, or real-world experiences?

The programme's curriculum, content, scope, and educational challenges should be cohesive and balanced, ensuring concepts and skills are taught in an appropriate order.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Does the curriculum provide a good mix of modules aligned with the programme's learning outcomes?
Q2: Are the modules organised logically and cohesively, ensuring concepts presented at the right times?
Q3: Does the programme offer a coherent balance of core and optional modules across its curriculum to meet the needs and interests of a diverse range of students?
Q4: Do the programme's modules all individually meet the School's approval rules?
Q5: Does the programme ensure that all students develop the skills necessary for their academic, personal, and professional growth, including capabilities for academic success, employability, and career management?

The designed programme must provide an educational challenge at an appropriate degree of rigour and difficulty reasonably expected in the sector in the context of the programme's subject matter and FHEQ level and subject benchmarks.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Have subject matter experts been involved in the design or validation of the programme's curriculum?
Q2: Are the assessment methods identified for every module in the programme valid, reliable, and fit-for-purpose?

The programme should incorporate the latest developments in the field of study.

The Academic Board will look at:

Q1: Is the curriculum designed to reflect current and future trends in the subject area?
Q2: Does the programme provide opportunities for interdisciplinary learning, aligning with modern academic trends?
Q3: Are there opportunities for students to engage in research or projects that contribute to the academic field?
Q4: Do students have opportunities to develop an understanding of good academic practice?
Q5: Do the School's systems for course evaluation and student feedback meet this programme's needs?

The methods of delivery proposed for new programmes should ensure a leading student experience.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Is the School's Learning and Teaching Strategy and technology incorporate in the programme and fit-for-purpose?
Q2: Are the programme's intended methods of delivery fit-for-purpose to create a high degree of student engagement?
Q3: Are the teaching methodologies and programme structure designed to achieve the stated learning outcomes effectively?
Q4: Are the modes of study and entry points clearly specified in the programme specifications and fit-for-purpose?
Q5: Can students effectively use available resources on the programme to monitor their progress and enhance their academic development?

The programme should be inclusive, accessible and accommodating of a diverse range of students with varying needs.

The Academic Board will look at: 

Q1: Are entry criteria clearly specified and appropriate?
Q2: Can the proposed learning and teaching activities accommodate a flexible study schedule that takes into account students' other commitments?
Q3: Does the programme specification include relevant exit awards for students who do not complete the full course?
Q4: Does the programme provide comprehensive support services that comply with regulatory requirements and ensure student well-being and success?

If the Academic Board is satisfied that the academic approval rules have been met, it will approve the programme for marketing and delivery.

The Academic Board will usually approve a programme for 6 years before it requires revalidation and may impose additional conditions or requirements as needed.

Programme documentation, along with the Academic Board's approval, must be recorded in the AGS for marketing, admissions, delivery, and assessment purposes. The Marketing Team will work with the programme team, following the Accuracy of Information Policy (AIP), to ensure all information is accurate and compliant with consumer protection standards. The Director of Operations will oversee processes to verify the accuracy of all information, whether published by the School (website, brochures, emails, etc.), its agents, partners, affiliates, or independent external sources.

The programme team must ensure the programme is set up on the AGS with all necessary content, including the programme handbook, timetable, and chapter content. The Director of Education must sign off on this setup before the programme can begin.

If a programme is not approved, the Academic Board will inform the programme team of the reasons and any conditions required for approval. The programme team may resubmit the programme after addressing these issues. The Academic Board will provide guidance on when resubmission should take place.

Applicants can only be enrolled onto modules and a programme can only be delivered once it has been fully approved under all three programme approval rules specified in this regulation.

Programmes are approved for a period of 6 years. After this time, they must undergo revalidation.

1. Revalidation Panel Composition:

   • Chair of the Academic Board (Chair)
   • One nominated student representative from the programme
   • Programme external examiner
   • One independent subject matter expert

2. Documentation:

   • A decision on revalidation must be made at least 18 months before the 6-year approval period expires to allow for at least one full cycle of the programme.
   • Documentation must include:
     • A reflection on the programme’s performance, including admissions, teaching, progression, assessment, student satisfaction, awards, and KPIs.
     • Evidence from module and programme leaders, satisfaction surveys, assessment results, external examiner reports, and other performance data.
     • Reports from directors on the Executive Committee. 
     • Programme specification and module specifications adhering to Academic Standards Regulations.
     • CVs of the programme leader and all staff.
     • Outcomes of stakeholder engagement regarding the programme.
     • External market analysis and ongoing business case.
     • External expert’s report on the programme.
     • Any other supporting documentation required for approval.

3. Panel Meeting:

   • The Panel should review this material before the meetings.

4. Decision Making:

   • The Panel will review the documentation based on the following approval rules:
     • Strategic Approval Rules
     • Operational Approval Rules
     • Academic Approval Rules, including the student experience, quality, standards, and performance to date.

5. Outcome:

   • After reviewing the documentation, the Chair will facilitate discussions. Decisions will be minuted. Possible outcomes include:
     • Full revalidation for another 6 years
     • Time-defined revalidation for a set period
     • Conditional revalidation based on meeting specific conditions
     • No revalidation
   • If revalidation is not approved, the programme development team may resubmit documentation for reconsideration. If approved, the same processes as initial approval will apply.

6. Report:

   • The Chair of the Panel will submit a report to the Academic Board for review at its next meeting and to the Board of Governors.

Operation:

• Venue: Meetings can be held in person, hybrid, or virtually.
• Quorum: A meeting must include the Chair and two other members.
• Consensus: Decisions should be reached by consensus after thorough discussion.
• Voting: Decisions are made by a majority of those present and voting. In case of a tie, the Chair has an additional casting vote.
• Transparency: Minutes of all meetings will be recorded and published.
• Reporting: The Chair reports to the Academic Board.

Modules are not tied to specific programmes and can be considered standalone.

• A proposed programme may include any module offered by the School, as long as it is at the appropriate level.
• Whether modules are core or optional depends on the programme’s title and discipline, and this will be detailed in the programme’s specification and documentation.

New modules must be approved by the Academic Board under the School’s module approval rules before enrolling students. Approval requires:

• An appropriate description
• An appropriate FHEQ level
• Well-defined learning outcomes
• Correct credit value and workload
• Relevant IKG concepts
• Alignment of IKG concepts with learning outcomes
• Up-to-date material
• Properly designed components
• Compliance with the School’s teaching system
• Suitable summative assessment formats
• Effective formative assessment
• Relevant references
• Approval from an independent academic expert

The module approval rules should be consulted before any new module is submitted for consideration because they identify what will need to be submitted and satisfied before a new module can be approved, such as industry consultation and external academic approval.

The new module approval process is as follows:

• Stage 1: Submit a draft module specification, a brief supporting statement, and evidence demonstrating compliance with module approval rules to the Director of Education at least 6 months before enrolment. Consult relevant internal staff and external experts, and include this information in the submission.
• Stage 2: If the Director of Education is satisfied with the submission, they will forward it to the Academic Board for ratification. If not, they will provide feedback to the module team.
• Stage 3: The Academic Board will review the module documentation, invite the module team to clarify details, and either approve or reject the module. If rejected, the Board will provide reasons, and the module team may resubmit after addressing these reasons. The Academic Board will advise on the resubmission process.

Once a module is approved, the School's IT and AGS Team will set it up in the AGS. The Marketing Team will collaborate with the programme team, following the Accuracy of Information Policy (AIP), to ensure all information is accurate and complies with consumer protection regulations. The Director of Operations will oversee processes to verify accuracy, whether the information is published directly by the School (website, brochures, emails, advertising), by agents, partners, affiliates, or by external publications (websites, blogs, listings, print).

The module team must ensure the module is fully set up, including on the AGS, with all required course content. The Director of Education must sign off on this before the module can start.

After completing the setup and sign-off, the programme team may request an amendment to include the new module in a programme, allowing student enrolment.

1. A 'major change' to a programme or module is one that:

   • Affects the School's strategy (strategic);
   • Impacts the School's operations or delivery (operational);
   • Alters the level, credit value, descriptor, teaching methods, assessment, or significantly changes what was advertised to students (academic).

2. A 'minor change' is any change not classified as major.

The Academic Board will determine whether a proposed change is major or minor.

Major changes must follow the full strategic, operational, and/or academic approval processes outlined in the programme approval rules. The Academic Board will determine the applicable stages and coordinate the process with relevant bodies. Documentation must be submitted at least 6 months in advance, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The proposer must consult with relevant internal staff (including the Director of Education, programme and module leaders), external experts, students, and other stakeholders. This consultation must be included in the submission. Meetings may be held, and relevant individuals may be invited. The Academic Board will communicate the final decision.

Minor changes to programmes must be approved by the Academic Board. The proposer must consult with relevant staff (including programme leaders), external experts, students, and other stakeholders, and include this consultation in their application. Changes must be submitted at least 3 months before they are due to take effect, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The Academic Board will advise on the required documentation and relevant teams will be invited to the Board meeting to discuss the change.

The School can withdraw a programme if it fails to meet the Programme Approval Rules. The decision to withdraw rests with the Board of Governors, which will determine the necessary evidence, including student consultation. The withdrawal process will adhere to the School’s regulatory, contractual, and consumer protection obligations. This includes:

• Ensuring current students complete the programme with appropriate learning opportunities.
• Maintaining academic quality and standards.
• Offering alternatives or refunds to applicants who have accepted offers or applied to the programme.

If the cumulative withdrawal of modules significantly affects the structure of programmes, it will be treated as a major change. The Academic Board will apply the major change process outlined in these regulations, coordinating relevant strategic, operational, and/or academic rules. If the impact is not substantial, the minor change rules will apply.

The Academic Board may delegate oversight of major or minor changes to the Director of Education, ensuring that student interests, standards, and quality are maintained. The Director of Education must report to the Academic Board and Executive Committee, which will decide when the matter is resolved.

Under the Accuracy of Information Policy (AIP), the Marketing, AGS, and other relevant teams must follow a protocol to ensure:

• Information is current and checked regularly.
• Changes are promptly reported to the Marketing and IT and AGS teams.
• Notifications of changes are sent to staff and students quickly.

The Director of Operations is responsible for ensuring that all information is accurate, whether published directly by the School, its agents, partners, affiliates, or external sources.

Once a module has been formally validated by the Academic Board, it may also be used for delivering a stand-alone credit-bearing short course.

To propose a short course, the faculty must follow the same approval process as for programme approval, covering strategic, operational, and academic aspects, though the process will be less extensive than full programme approval. Once approved, the short course can be marketed and delivered.

Credit-bearing short courses must:

• Be at a designated FHEQ Level.
• Include defined learning outcomes.
• Have a credit value and workload set by the School (typically 10-30 CATS credits).
• Use an appropriate School teaching system and activities.
• Include summative assessments.
• Obtain independent expert academic approval.
• Adhere to School regulations, such as the Assessment Regulations.

Short courses undergo revalidation every 3 years. Refer to the Short Courses (Non-Credit and Credit-Bearing) Regulations for more details.

Under the Monitoring and Evaluation Regulations, the School maintains a comprehensive system to ensure that programmes and modules remain robust, meet standards, and uphold high-quality teaching and learning. This system follows external and regulatory guidance, including the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Quality Code and its Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation. The School values student contributions to monitoring and evaluation and provides several ways for students to engage.

All programmes are also reviewed and evaluated every 6 years to ensure they remain current and relevant. The results of these evaluations help identify areas for improvement and guide future programme development. The School uses methods such as student feedback, external examiner reports, and employer feedback to assess programme quality and effectiveness.

The Academic Board oversees the programme approval process and the periodic and review of programmes and modules. It reports to the Board of Governors before their three annual meetings.