Jump to accessibility statement Skip to content
Close menu

Close

Close menu

Academic Governance

Home / About / About the University / How is the University managed? / University leadership / Academic Governance

Academic governance refers to the decision-making and review structures, systems and process to ensure the quality, standards, and strategic direction of all academic activities at the University. Academic activities include teaching, learning, research, academic standards, awards, and student success and outcomes, and governance includes how decisions related to these are monitored, assured, and aligned with institutional goals.  

The University has an Academic Board (like the majority of other universities, which may be called this or a ‘Senate’) which sits at the top of formal decision-making on education and student success strategy, academic standards, academic regulation and policy. Academic governance operates in parallel to the University’s corporate governance arrangements, headed up by its Board of Governors and committees. However, it is important that Academic Board and its arrangements link up and across to the Board of Governors, and through the leadership of the University by the University Executive. In doing this, Academic Board provides an effective information flow to the Board of Governors to enable the latter body to ‘receive and test assurance that academic governance is adequate and effective’ in line with the Office for Students (OfS) Public interest governance principles. The Board of Governors’ Academic Assurance Committee provides a key channel for providing comfort and challenge in meeting these requirements.

In 2024/25 we ran an Academic Governance Review (login required) which reported its findings to Academic Board and onwards to the Academic Assurance Committee in March 2025. In adopting the findings, the University has created a new headline academic senior committee structure. Beyond significant changes to the terms of reference and membership of Academic Board, for the start of the 2025/26 academic year we have created:  

  • a new Education Committee, reporting into Academic Board, to replace Student Success Committee (SSC) and its Academic Development and Quality Sub-Committee (ADQSC). Beneath this, one recommendation was to do a follow-on evaluation of the sub-groups/sub-committees which sit under the former SSC, to ensure their business is effectively joined up and homed in on strategic and compliance priorities for positive student outcomes and experiences. 
  • a new Educational Partnerships Committee, which will also report into Academic Board and is set up to provide high-level oversight of the breadth of University academic partnerships, absorbing Transnational Education (TNE) Quality Sub-Group business as one part of its role. 

These two new Academic Board committees will sit alongside the existing Research and Innovation Committee.

Read more about the Education Committee and Educational Partnerships Committee.

See details of the Academic Governance Review Findings 2024/25:

Published: 29 August 2025

  • Fieldwork/Research took place from May–November 2024
  • Report drafting: November–December 2024
  • Plan for the core recommendations to be in place for the start of the 2025/26 academic year
  • Online staff survey (July–September 2024) 64 responses
  • 50+ 1-2-1 and small group discussions with senior leaders, chairs, officers, committee secretaries and Deputy Academic Registrar
  • USSU 2024/25 sabbatical team focus group/induction (August 2024)
  • Key Committee consideration and feedback captured:
    • Academic Board support for the review scope and regular progress updates to it (March, June and October 2024 meetings)
    • Academic Board sub-committees consideration of relevant parts of their remit (May-October 2024)
    • Academic Assurance Committee (November 2024 and February 2025 meetings)
    • Academic Board approval of the findings and further Board of Governors’ support (March 2025)
  • Benchmarking against the academic governance frameworks of 35 HE providers in the UK, Australia and Scandinavia (July 2024)
  • 12 key recommendations grouped under three distinct but connecting themes of ‘Purpose’, ‘People’ and ‘Process’.

Purpose

The remit of individual elements of the academic governance structure and bodies, and how they work together.

Recommendation 1:

To review Academic Board’s Terms of Reference (see also Recommendation 7)

Recommendation 2:

To dissolve both Student Success Committee and Academic Development and Quality Sub-Committee, and replace both bodies with a single Education Committee of Academic Board which brings together the strategic and significant business currently brought to each body.

Recommendation 3:

To revise the remit and membership and raise the existing TNE Quality and Standards Sub-Group to become an Educational Partnerships Committee of Academic Board.

Recommendation 3a:

A range of stakeholders leading academic and executive/recruitment/legal/ contractual/due diligence/resourcing/and operations around partnerships, recommend a more simplified governance structure for these functions.

Recommendation 4:

To undertake a more detailed review of the relationship between the status and potential for joining up of aspects of the business of several Student Success Committee sub-groups, including Enhancement to the Student Experience Group, Student Support and Retention Group, University Graduate Progression Group, Student Representation Steering Group, and Apprenticeship Sub-Committee. This will be dependent on the outcome of Recommendation 2.

Recommendation 5:

To create a new headline faculty corporate and academic governance structure, common to the three faculties, to create Faculty Senior Leadership Committees (FSLCs) and a Faculty Education Committee (FEC) to replace the Faculty Academic Committees.

Recommendation 6:

To replace the existing Staff-Student Liaison Committee with Student Voice Feedback Forums across the University’s provision.

People

The membership and development elements of the academic governance system and bodies.

Recommendation 7:

To diversify Academic Board and (sub)committee/group membership specifically in relation to gender, ethnicity and levels of academic and professional service staff populating these bodies.

Recommendation 8:

To develop:

  1. a) a bank of materials for Academic Board and its committees to support an understanding of the role for members as well as wider University governance structure.
  2. b) webpages on Sharepoint initially and then publicly for Academic Board and its committees, in line with basic expectations of transparency of information in relation to core academic governance arrangements.

Process

The underpinning policy, documentation and practical arrangements supporting effective academic governance.

Recommendation 9:

To embed ‘rapid review’ of Academic Board committee documentation, centred on restructured committee agendas, terms of reference and workplans with common headings, focused strategic development/monitoring and major policy/regulation remits and concise committee reports.

Recommendation 10:

To develop an Academic Board Scheme of Delegation to assign devolved authority for approvals to ‘its (a) (sub)committees and groups and (b) senior academic officers of the University’ to ‘its committees and groups and senior staff with executive and academic leadership responsibilities’.

Recommendation 11:

To produce a set of ‘Governance Regulations’, e.g. equivalent to ‘Standing Orders’ as the governing rules for Academic Board and its committees.