Proposing a New Programme

Completion of an Approval in Principle (AiP) form is required for the following types of programmes/courses:

• All new Apprenticeships, regardless of whether they are created via the new programme proposal route or an exceptional programme modification. For Apprenticeships that are being created via the new programme proposal process, the AiP replaces Part A of the form, so only the standalone New Programme Proposal form is required. See the Apprenticeship page for further information and to download the relevant forms.
• All programmes to be delivered at the Dubai campus, including those created via an exceptional modification of an existing programme. The Dubai Steering Group approves all AiPs before the School proceeds to the programme modification stage. Note that for brand new programmes, completion of the AiP replaces Part A of the form, so in these cases the standalone New Programme Proposal form should be completed once the AiP has been approved. 
• New Distance Learning programmes. Completion of the AiP replaces Part A of the form. Schools should complete the standalone New Programme Proposal form once the AiP has been approved by the Distance Learning Steering Group (a Distance Learning checklist is still required to be submitted with the New Programme Proposal). 
• New Collaborative programmes, for which both Parts A and B (the Plan to Develop a New Programme and New Programme Proposal) should be completed but only after the AiP has been approved by the Collaborative Provision Committee (see below for more information on setting up a new collaborative programme).
• New Microcredentials: the University of Birmingham and FutureLearn are working together to deliver a new online microcredential short course portfolio targeting CPD topics in high demand. For new microcredentials, an Approval in Principle form will need to be completed and submitted with costings to be approved by the School/Institute and an appropriate College level board (e.g. College Board, Curriculum group), including approval from the College Director of Education. The microcredential proposal form and specification will then be approved by the relevant School Education Committee (or equivalent) and CQAAC prior to submission for University-level approval. If the microcredential will be created via unbundling a current programme's modules then no AiP is needed and the modification should be done via an exceptional programme modification and a microcredential proposal form requesting that the modules are copied into microcredentials - no specification is needed. If you have any questions, please email micro@contacts.bham.ac.uk. If you have an idea for a microcredential please contact your College DL/Digital Lead and Director of Education.

 

• Form Bank

The table below outlines the approval routes for Parts A and B of the programme proposal form, in addition to exceptional programme modifications and programme withdrawals, suspensions, and reactivations). At University level, the Chair of the University Quality Assurance Committee (UQAC) reviews New Programme Proposals and exceptional programme modifications.

Table indicating the level of approval required for different processes

	Approval required by...
Process	School Education Committee (or equivalent)	College Education Committee	College Quality Assurance and Approvals Committee	College Board	UQAC
Programme proposal Part A (Plan to Develop a New Programme) and market research	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	N/A
Programme proposal Parts A & B (New Programme Proposal) and all associated documentation	Yes	N/A	Yes	Optional	Yes
Exceptional programme modification	Yes	N/A	Yes	Optional	Yes
Programme withdrawal/suspension/ reactivation	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes	Yes

 

(Note the Approval in Principle forms are generally approved by their relevant Steering Group/Committee separately).

Programme Proposer: Key Tasks

• Liaise with the College Marketing and Communications team, who will produce a full market research report (this must be submitted alongside Part A). This is to determine unequivocally whether a viable market for the programme exists at the first stage of planning a new programme.
• Undertake appropriate engagement with internal stakeholders, including the Planning and Finance Business Partners, who should be given an opportunity to complete the relevant part of the form (see section below). They can also guidance regarding financial planning and targets, which are a crucial part of planning a new programme. (It is best practice to have a meeting at an early stage with key internal stakeholders to ensure all relevant areas have the opportunity to contribute to the programme's development).
• Find a suitable external adviser and ensure their details are included in the relevant section of Part A (please see the associated guidance on external advisers). 
• Ensure that Part A indicates how the new programme aligns with the College’s strategic aims and priorities; this is a key aspect approval committees will consider. College Board in particular will consider the market, resources, financial implications, size and shape of the portfolio, and the fit with Compact.

Next Steps

Part A (with market research) should be submitted for approval to the School Education Committee (or equivalent), College Education Committee, and College Board. Colleges should ensure that any concerns from Business Partners, e.g. regarding student numbers, are taken into account when deciding whether to approve a new programme.

• Form Bank
• College Academic Policy Partners
• Consultation Guidance
• External Adviser Comments Guidance
• Timetabling Information

Programme Proposer: Key Tasks

• Ensure Part A of the form has received approval by College Board.
• Complete Part B, ensuring any changes to Part A since approval are noted in the first section of Part B (changes to Part A can also be made in tracked changes).
• Complete any additional documentation alongside Part B, which must include the programme specification, as well as curriculum, assessment, and skills mapping documents, and (if required) a distance learning checklist for DL programmes and a placement proposal if the programme will include a placement (the College Academic Policy Partner can advise).
• Complete module proposals and specifications, which should ideally be submitted and considered by the School Education Committee (or equivalent) alongside Part B. 
• Engage with internal stakeholders, including Finance, Planning, Marketing and Recruitment, Library Services, the Higher Education Futures institute, and other colleagues in Academic Services.
• Send all relevant documentation to the external adviser for review and ensure they complete the external adviser form, which must be submitted alongside Part B.

Next Steps

Part B (with associated documentation) should be submitted to the School Education Committee (or equivalent) for approval, followed by the College Quality Assurance and Approvals Committee (CQAAC). If required, Part B should be approved by College Board (this is not mandatory).

Once Part B has received appropriate approval from the College, the College Academic Policy Partner will submit Plan B, the programme specification, external adviser comments, and other programme-level documentation to the University Quality Assurance Committee for verification by the Chair.

The College Academic Policy Partner will convey the decision to the relevant colleagues in the College and the paperwork will then be submitted to the Curriculum Management Team for action. 

• Form Bank
• College Academic Policy Partners
• Consultation Guidance
• External Adviser Comments Guidance

This process uses the programme modification form (rather than the new programme proposal Parts A and B) and is used to create a new or 'cloned' version of an existing programme. It does not generally require the same two-step level of scrutiny as the full new programme proposal process as the programme on which it is based will have already been through that process. 

The programme modification form (including the appendix) should be completed and submitted to the School Education Committee (or equivalent) and then the College Quality Assurance and Approvals Committee for approval, alongside a programme specification and any other required documentation. 

If considered necessary by the College Deputy Director of Education and College Academic Policy Partner, exceptional modifications to existing programmes are approved by College Board, to ensure that the proposed change will fit with the strategic aims of the College.

Exceptional modifications to existing programmes are subsequently verified by the Chair of the University Quality Assurance Committee (UQAC).

As with programmes created via the new programme approval process, new programmes created via exceptional modifications should include consultation with key stakeholders.

The following types of programmes can be created via the exceptional programme modification process (this list is not exhaustive):

• A programme for delivery at the Dubai campus, based on an Edgbaston programme (note this will require the completion of a Dubai Approval in Principle form before submission of the programme modification form).
• An Apprenticeship version of an existing programme (note this will require the completion of an Apprenticeship Approval in Principle form before submission of the programme modification form, and it must be accompanied by an Apprenticeship checklist).
• A Distance Learning version of an existing programme (note this will require the completion of an Apprenticeship Approval in Principle form before submission of the programme modification form).
• Creating an additional award, e.g. an MSci version of an existing BSc.  
• Microcredentials of a current programme's modules. 

• Form Bank
• College Academic Policy Partners

This guidance has been created through consultation with Registry, External Relations, Planning, and the Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education). The timelines below are best practice rather than strict deadlines, and provide new programmes with the optimum chance of success in terms of meeting student recruitment targets. The guidance outlines the rationale behind these timelines and additional considerations, to ensure approval bodies (namely College Boards) are aware of the potential impact of the timing of when programmes are approved, to manage appropriately any risks involved.

This advice applies to the submission of new programme proposals and also exceptional programme modifications when the Appendix has been completed. 

New Undergraduate Home Programmes

Advised Deadline for Final Approval: Approx. 20 months before planned delivery of the programme (e.g. December 2023 for September 2025 delivery). Meeting this deadline would allow the programme to be included in the prospectus (signed off in December) and in the market for the beginning of the admissions cycle in February, which is also when UCAS fairs begin. There are also UG Open Days in June. Additionally, from February staff will advertise the programmes in schools/colleges. 

New Postgraduate Taught Home Programmes

Advised Deadline for Final Approval: 13 months before planned delivery of programme (e.g. August 2022 for September 2023).

Meeting this deadline would allow the programme to be included in the PGT prospectus, which is finalised in August, and at the PG Open Days in November and March.

New Programmes for Delivery in Dubai

New programmes to be delivered at the Dubai campus need to be approved by the UAE's Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA). There are two submission windows annually, at the end of August and the end of March, and programmes should be submitted ca. 18 months before the planned first cohort. The recommended deadline for internal approval is two months prior to submission to the CAA. Therefore, a programme planning to launch in September 2025 should be approved internally by 31 January 2024 to be submitted for CAA accreditation by 31 March 2024. A programme planning to launch in January 2026 should be approved internally by 30 June 2024 to be submitted for CAA accreditation 31 August 2024. 

Managing Risk and Additional Recommendations

Admissions data has shown that programmes that do not meet these deadlines are likely to have their recruitment potential in their first year significantly impacted, due to reduced visibility, e.g. if the programme is not included in the prospectus. While it is possible to add programmes to the market after the deadlines, the risks involved in potentially recruiting fewer students must be carefully managed.

The risks are correlated to the resource required to run the proposed programme. There could be a lower risk if the deadlines are not met if there is less resource associated with running the proposed programme, e.g. if it:

• Has shared modules with other programmes and very few/no bespoke modules.
• Does not require the recruitment of additional members of academic or non-academic staff.
• Is intended to recruit small numbers and/or only requires small numbers to be financially viable (in every year or in the first year).
• Is an Apprenticeship or commissioned programme that has guaranteed (or very likely) applicants. 
• Is a smaller programme, e.g. a PGCert.

It is strongly recommended that all new programmes have threshold student numbers, by which its success can be measured.

In addition, Colleges should consider:

• How the programme fits with Compact.
• Whether students on the new programme will be eligible to apply for funding or scholarships. (Guidance on students’ eligibility for applying for student loans is available on the form bank).
• The risk of withdrawing programmes that do not recruit as planned but that have applicants, in which case the Student Protection Plan may need to be triggered. 

In the development of any new programme(s), engagement with the relevant professional services colleagues (both in the College and beyond) is crucial.

Part A (the PDNP) requires comments from the Head of Marketing and Communications, College Planning Partner, and College Accountant, in addition to the Head of Collaborative Provision (if a Collaborative programme is being proposed, see below) and a representative from a partner College/School/Institute (if a joint programme is being proposed). These consultations should take place before Part A is submitted to the School Education Committee, and ideally at the earliest possible opportunity. 

It is strongly recommended that pre-Part A/PDNP meetings take place in each College, which bring together those key stakeholders (especially Planning and Finance) for informal discussion. Early discussion of new programmes can save time and ensure no key elements are missed in the first submission of the paperwork. 

Additionally, a range of other colleagues can offer their expertise at an early stage of programme design and you are strongly encouraged to engage with them as early as possible (see the Consultation page for a full list and further information). The College Academic Policy Partner will also ensure that Part A of the proposal is shared with key colleagues in External Relations, Planning, and Academic Services, and Part B with a wider pool of colleagues. This takes place via a Programme Development and Approval Teams site, which hosts paperwork for Parts A and B. Key College stakeholders can also be granted access to this site, just contact Jennifer Palmer (j.l.palmer@bham.ac.uk).

Colleagues who should be consulted during the development of a new programme, and given an opportunity to offer their expertise, include: 

• Careers Network (Matt Edwards). 
• Educational Enterprise (particularly for blended/Distance Learning programmes).
• Higher Education Futures institute (the College's Educational Development lead and the College's Partnership and Development Manager from Birmingham Digital Education).
• Library Services (Library Engagement Advisors).
• International Student Team (if the programme intends to recruit international students). 
• Taught Student Administration (this is essential if the programme contains non-standard elements).
• Research Student Administration (research programmes only).
• Student Conduct (this is essential if students on the programme will be subject to Fitness to Practise regulations).
• Timetabling and Examinations (particularly for programmes intending to recruit large cohorts and/or that intend to combine different subjects that have been assigned pillars in the block timetable - guidance on the approved block structure and subject pillars is available here).
• Admissions Manager for your College (before the submission of Part B). 

For further information about consultation, see the guidance on consultation here. 

Embedding the university’s Graduate Attributes in the curriculum is crucial to ensuring that UoB’s education offer is future-focused, and to help students to achieve their aspirations for their future ‘professional lives’ after graduation.  The Graduate Attributes are also crucial to equip students to meet employers’ expectations of gradates, which are developing rapidly, and to help our students to prepare for the labour markets of the future, which are expected to be significantly different to those of today.

 The Future Skills Academic Toolkit is designed to support you to embed our Graduate Attributes into your teaching by providing resources and examples of activities that help students to develop the attributes that have been created at the university.   Our nine Graduate Attributes sit under three themes:

• Intellectually Curious: to be self-motivated researchers and learners; engaging in cutting-edge academic disciplines
• Future Focused: to be resilient and innovative in the activation of positive change with a commitment to lifelong learning and personal development
• Practically Wise: to act with humility, confidence and good judgment to do the right thing at the right time.

For discipline-specific information on transferable skills and attributes, see the QAA subject benchmark statement for your discipline.

A collaborative arrangement is an arrangement whereby learning opportunities are provided to students in collaboration with another party, and which leads to an award of the University of Birmingham. Before engaging with the programme approval process, a collaborative arrangement needs to be approved in principle by the Collaborative Provision Committee, by completion of an Approval in Principle (AiP). This must be approved by the Collaborative Provision Committee in advance of the submission of a new programme proposal. Completion of the AiP form should be undertaken following conversation with Collaborative Provision.

The aim of the AiP is to ensure that the new arrangements contribute to the strategic development and goals of the School, College, and University; that the academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities for students are maintained; and that the potential financial, legal, academic, and reputational risks are appraised.

The AiP requires comments and sign-off by College and non-College staff and approval at School and College level. (For Research programmes, following approval at School and College level, if relevant, the Collaborative Provision Office circulates the AiP for comments to selected colleagues across the University).

Some arrangements follow a different approval process and are approved via Chair’s action, including doctoral training arrangements, collaboration with Universitas 21 (U21) institutions, European Joint Doctorates and any other arrangements that, following consideration by the Collaborative Provision team are deemed suitable for the alternative approval process.

Please contact the Collaborative Provision Office for advice on the approval process, management and review of collaborative provision arrangements.

Generally, completion of Part A takes approximately 4 months:

• 2 months: Completion of the form alongside the market research and consultation with Business Partners (Marketing, Finance, and Planning, as well as the College Academic Policy Partner).
• 1 month: Circulation to expert reviewers elsewhere in the University and responses to their comments as required.
• 1 month: Part A considered by CEC and then College Board, with feedback provided at each stage.

Completion of Part B takes approximately 5 months:

• 2 months: Completion of Part B alongside additional documents, in consultation with Business Partners.
• 1 month: Part B and accompanying documentation sent to independent external adviser for comment, as well as expert reviewers at UoB.
• 1 month: School responds to feedback and amends paperwork as necessary prior to School approval. 
• 1 month: Part B and accompanying documents considered by approval by CQAAC and then College Board (before submission to UQAC).

These timeframes are based on the College Academic Policy Partners' experience for new programmes, and should be taken as a minimum timeframe. How long it takes paperwork to be written depends on the nature of the proposed programme and the staff resource/effort involved in completing the paperwork. 

No, it is expected that there would be development and changes in response to feedback from the first stage of consultation, e.g. within the College and with experts in Academic Services. Changes since initial submission of the Part A can be made in tracked changes on Part A when it is submitted with Part B. 

No, you can do this on one proposal/modification form and one specification, just be clear that you require a full- and part-time pathway. The full- and part-time versions will be given separate programme codes. If the part-time version can be studied flexibly, please ensure you specify the minimum and maximum lengths on the programme specification. 

The University of Birmingham’s Regulations (Section 5) (PDF - 201KB)) state that: ‘For taught postgraduate and graduate taught programmes, the standard pattern of attendance, for a full-time Registered Student, is based on a credit load of up to 180 credits per University Session. This equates to attendance of up to forty hours per week over 45 weeks.’ There is no definition of part-time, to provide flexibility as it is expected that workload will vary by subject. 

For Taught Postgraduate programmes, the norm is that full-time programmes last one year and part-time versions last two years. There are, however, many instances in which it is preferable to offer more flexibility, particularly for part-time programmes; the Regulations allow that ‘Students are normally expected to complete an Award within the period specified in the programme requirements’. If a programme can be studied flexibly part-time it is essential that the programme specification provides the minimum and maximum periods of study.

When considering the appropriate length for a programme, it is important to consider the possible implication for students’ eligibility to apply for the Masters loan. The guidance states that, for students to be eligible, Masters courses can be ‘full-time, lasting 1 or 2 academic years’, ‘part-time, lasting 2 to 4 academic years (no more than twice the length of the equivalent full-time course)', or ‘part-time for up to 3 years’ if there is no equivalent full-time course. See the form bank for further information around PGT funding.

The programme needs to be approved by the College that will ‘own’ it, e.g. the College that runs most of the modules. The partner College should be consulted. The modules attached to the programme will need to be approved by whoever owns them (all modules have to have an owning department).

In line with the University's enhanced curriculum framework, the number of credits to be undertaken by students in the/each subject named in their degree title are as follows:

• For a Bachelor's degree, 160 credits in a major subject (and for a 'joint' degree, both subjects are major), 100 credits in a minor subject. 
• For an Integrated Masters degree, 220 credits in a major subject, 120 credits in a minor subject.

With regards to qualification titles the University recommends following the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), in its Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies, states in section 6.23: 

'Qualification titles that reflect the subject focus of programmes of study in two disciplines (for example, a joint honours qualification) adopt nomenclatures based on:

• 'A and B', where there is an approximately equal balance between two components.
• 'A with B' for a major/minor combination where the minor subject accounts for at least a quarter of the programme.’

 

No, the College Marketing and Communications team will do this for you as they have the necessary expertise. Get in touch with your College's Head of Marketing and Communications as soon as possible.

Ideally, yes. As well as giving approval committees and stakeholders the opportunity to understand the programme as a whole, it ensures there are no inconsistencies in the paperwork that can arise if they are not developed side-by-side, e.g. differences in module titles between what is listed on the programme specifications and in the module paperwork. Moreover, it is best practice for the external adviser on new programmes to have access to the module proposals when making their comments. 

Before engaging with the programme approval process, a collaborative arrangement needs to be approved in principle by the Collaborative Provision Committee. ‘Recognised Lecturers/Supervisors’ are members of staff of a collaborative organisation who play key roles in the management, delivery, and assessment of programmes in collaborative arrangements. The award of the title is granted by the Collaborative Provision Committee following consideration of the Recognised Lecturers/Supervisors nomination form.

Please click here for contact details for the Collaborative Provision Office and to access the relevant forms and guidance.