Home > News & events > News archive > 2009 > HEFCE's dealings with London Metropolitan University > LMU timeline - 2004
HEFCE’s dealings with London Metropolitan University
Timeline of events
Documents and records of other communications can be viewed below, listed by date. An overview of events is on the main LMU page.
2004
-
Date: 11 Feb 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Assurance 1 (HEFCE) to Roderick Floud (VC)
Description: LMU notified that an audit of the HESES03 return will take place. -
Date: 21 May 2004
Format: Diary entry
From/To: David Young (HEFCE Chair) meets with UUK New Members Group
Description: At the meeting, HEFCE’s definition of non-completion is raised. This prompts exchanges of correspondence detailed below.View item: Not applicable
-
Date: 2 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Michael Driscoll (Campaigning for Mainstream Universities (CMU)) to Howard Newby (HEFCE)
Description: CMU voices concerns over what they conceive as a new definition of completions, specifically paragraph 15 of Annex D of HESES03 guidance. This letter and responses (see next entry) have been included as they are referenced in later correspondence with LMU.View item: Download the D2009_27868.pdf as PDF (57 KB)
-
Date: 21 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Howard Newby (HEFCE) to Michael Driscoll (CMU)
Description: HEFCE clarification of non-completions to CMU. The letter corrects the implication in Michael Driscoll's 2 June 2004 letter that failing a module (as opposed to not undergoing the final assessment) necessarily meant a student would be a non-completion.View item: Download the D2009_27869.pdf as PDF (31 KB)
-
Date: 21 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Robert Aylett (LMU) to John Rushforth (HEFCE)
Description: Letter from LMU voicing concerns on interpretation of non-completions in light of impending data audit. This letter and the examples it enclosed suggest erroneously that academic failure necessarily meant a student would be treated as a non-completion. It does not distinguish between failure of a module because of poor academic performance (which would not be treated as a non-completion) as opposed to failure of a module because of non-attendance at a final exam (which would be a non-completion).View item: Download the D2009_27870.pdf as PDF (262 KB)
-
Date: 21 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: David Young (HEFCE Chair) to Roderick Floud (LMU President)
Description: Letter plus 1 notes page and 3 page annex clarifying HEFCE's policy on non-completions to LMU. This is following David Young's attendance at a group of new VCs convened at UUK where the issue arose (see 21 May 2004).View item: Download the D2009_27871.pdf as PDF (166 KB)
-
Date: 23 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Roderick Floud (LMU) to David Young (HEFCE), copied to Michael Driscoll (CMU)
Description: Response to David Young’s letter of 21 June 2004. Again, as with the letter from Robert Aylett (21 June 2004) the letter does not distinguish between failure of a module because of poor academic performance (which would not be treated as a non-completion) as opposed to failure of a module because of non-attendance at a final exam (which would be a non-completion).View item: Download the D2009_27872.pdf as PDF (29 KB)
-
Date: 23-25 Jun & 9 Jul 2004
Format: Event
From/To: HESES03 Data Audit Field Work
Description: HESES03 Data Audit Field Work. -
Date: 30 Jun 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: David Young (HEFCE Chair) to Roderick Floud (LMU President)
Description: Reply to Roderick Floud’s letter of 23 June 2004. The letter corrects the impression that academic failure (as opposed to non-attendance at a final exam) necessarily constitutes non-completion. The reply goes on to make clear a difference between student continuation into the following year and our definition of non-completion of the current year of study.View item: Download the D2009_27877.pdf as PDF (28 KB)
-
Date: 1 Jul 2004
Format: E-mail
From/To: John Rushforth (HEFCE) to Robert Aylett (LMU)
Description: Response to Robert Aylett's letter of 21 June 2004.The response is consistent with the view that the exchange was about the difference between student progression/continuation and the non-completion definition and that the University had not distinguished correctly between failure of a module because of poor academic performance (which would not be treated as a non-completion, and which appeared to apply in 5 out of the 6 cases put forward) as opposed to failure of a module because of non-attendance at a final exam (which would be a non-completion).View item: Download the D2009_27878.pdf as PDF (265 KB)
-
Date: 16 Aug 2004
Format: Letter and report
From/To: Assurance 3 (HEFCE) to Brian Roper (LMU)
Description: HESES03 Audit Report sent to LMU highlighting concerns on reliability of data on student record system and requesting further data on these areas. -
Date: 16 Sept 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: LMU 1 (LMU) to Assurance 3 (HEFCE)
Description: Re HESES03 Data AuditExpresses concerns that audit was unfairly detailed – this picks up on concerns regarding non-completion rules expressed by Robert Aylett Deputy VC (Academic) LMU in a letter to John Rushforth as Director of Widening Participation on 21 June 2004. Also provided additional data and explanations.
-
Date: 16 Sept 2004
Format: Meeting
From/To: Robin Jackson (HEFCE) and LMU Senior Management
Description: Meeting between HEFCE regional team and LMU. This was a standard visit by the HEFCE regional team.View item: Not applicable
-
Date: 25 Oct 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: Assurance 3 (HEFCE) to Brian Roper (LMU)
Description: The letter summarises the issues raised by HESES03 audit (i.e. recording of: pre-01 December withdrawals, students' mode of study, student financial suspension, cross-year courses, price grouping of modules). -
Date: Dec 2004 - Jan 2005
Format: HESES submission
From/To: LMU 1 (LMU) to INS 1 (HEFCE)
Description: Submission of HESES04. This led to holdback of £3,790,040. This was offset in-year by a balancing allocation of moderation funding, but deducted in full from the University's baseline for 2005-06. FT UG non-completion rate reported as 6.9 per cent. -
Date: 22 Dec 2004
Format: Letter
From/To: INS 2 (HEFCE) to VC (LMU)
Description: Letter signalling that the grant adjustment report for LMU currently shows consolidated holdback of grant greater than 1 per cent of total income. The letter asks the VC to inform us formally of the implications of this for the University's forecast financial position by 14 January 2005.View item: Download the D2009_28573.pdf as PDF (944 KB)
Share this:
Vacancies | Copyright | Disclaimer | Tenders |