• Section 1 - Purpose
• Scope
• Effective dates
• References
• Section 2 - Glossary
• Section 3 - Policy
• Academic governance of courses and subjects
• External advisory committees
• Courses managed by divisions
• Course and subject design
• Course and subject admission requirements
• Maximum periods for completion of courses
• Awards with honours or distinction
• Non-award offerings
• Course and subject development, approval and phasing out
• Table of approval authorities
• Professional accreditation
• Service teaching
• Course and subject delivery and management
• Consistency of delivery
• Levels of scholarly activity
• Academic staff qualifications and equivalent professional experience
• Conscientious objection
• Course and subject surveys
• Subject experience survey (SuES)
• Course and subject review and reaccreditation
• Courses involving third parties
• Course and subject information
• Referencing
• Section 4 - Procedures
• Section 5 - Guidelines

Section 1 - Purpose

(1) This policy sets out the requirements for each stage of the life cycle of the University’s courses and subjects: for their design and development, approval, delivery and management, continuous improvement and phasing out (courses) or obsolescence (subjects).

(2) It ensures that courses leading to awards of Charles Sturt University (the University), and the subjects that make them up, will:

1. be of a consistently high standard;
2. be improved regularly on the basis of feedback from students, reflection and review by staff and external experts, benchmarking and other sources of data;
3. be designed so that students can achieve course learning outcomes by aligning:
   1. learning activities and assessment tasks to construct subject learning outcomes; and 
   2. subject learning outcomes to construct course learning outcomes;
4. provide students with opportunities to demonstrate the University’s graduate attributes;
5. equip students for, as relevant, their transition to a career, further study or research;
6. be designed to meet the needs of the regions, industries and professions served by the University;
7. contribute to the University’s course profile, to achieving its strategies and to generating the revenue needed to sustain the University’s operations;
8. be consistent with the specifications for each qualification in the Australian Qualifications Framework;
9. be consistent with the standards that apply to courses in the Higher Education Standards Framework;
10. meet requirements for professional accreditation where relevant; and
11. comply with the requirements of section 2.1.5(iv) of the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes that the University will have policy provisions on how it will handle conscientious objections to use of animals in teaching.

Scope

(3) This policy applies to all courses and subjects offered by the University and by third parties on behalf of the University, including non-award offerings. Its requirements for governance, management and delivery of courses and subjects apply to all university staff and adjunct staff involved in those activities.

(4) Some sections of this policy and its supporting procedures have a more limited scope, as stated in those sections.

Effective dates

(5) This policy will come into effect in two stages. Clauses (1)-(10), the ‘Course and subject development, approval and phasing out’ provisions stated at clauses (31)-(37) and the table of approval authorities following clause (37) will take effect immediately this policy is published. The other clauses will take effect from 1 November 2020.

References

(6) Where a supporting document is referenced in this policy, it will be listed in the associated information tab.

Section 2 - Glossary

(7) For the purposes of this policy, the following terms have the definitions stated:

1. Accreditation – approval or re-approval of a course by the University as meeting the required course design requirements and standards; see also professional accreditation.
2. Award – a qualification such as a certificate, diploma or degree, which the University confers on students who have completed the requirements of the course of study leading to the qualification.
3. Convening school – the school responsible for the academic quality of the relevant subject; see also Teaching school.
4. Course – see Coursework course, Higher degree by research course and Short course. Where the term ‘course’ is used without a modifying adjective, it means a course leading to an award of the University, and does not include short courses. Where a short course is meant, the term ‘short course’ is used.
5. Course Director – includes the role titled ‘course director’ and the role titled ‘course coordinator’ where this title is still used.
6. Course documents – the documents submitted for academic approval of a new course or change to a course.
7. Coursework course – a course leading to a qualification at Australian Qualifications Framework level 8 or below, or a masters course with no research component or with a research component weighted at less than 66% of the total credit points required to complete the course. Coursework courses lead to the award of an undergraduate certificate, undergraduate diploma, associate degree, bachelor degree, bachelor (honours) degree, graduate certificate, graduate diploma, or a master by coursework as defined in the previous sentence.
8. Coursework subject – a subject on a specified topic for which students engage with text, learning materials and/or resources, and complete assessment tasks; not a research component.
9. Graduate attributes – as defined in the Graduate attributes section of the Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure.
10. Higher degree by research course – a course leading to a qualification at Australian Qualifications Framework level 9 or level 10 in which a research component makes up 66% or more of the course volume of learning. Higher degree by research courses lead to the award of a master by research, professional doctorate or doctor of philosophy.
11. Indigenous Australian content – see the Indigenous Australian Content in Courses Policy for the University’s definition of this type of content.
12. Mode – the mode of delivery of a course or subject: e.g., online or on campus.
13. Non-award offering – a short course or single subject in which a student is enrolled without having been admitted to a course that leads to an award of the University.
14. Offering – an individual delivery of a course or subject in a session, at a location and by a mode.
15. Online intensive – a substantial learning activity in a course or subject that is delivered online, equivalent to a residential school but instead delivered online; see also Residential school.
16. Professional accreditation – accreditation of a course by an external body such as a professional association, as meeting the standards set by the body for a qualification leading to the relevant profession.
17. Research component – one or more subjects for a higher degree by research course, a master by coursework and dissertation, or a bachelor (honours) course, in which students undertake a substantial piece of research involving a thesis, dissertation, portfolio or project.
18. Residential school – a learning activity or set of learning activities held at a single physical location for students enrolled to study a course or subject online; see also Online intensive.
19. Scholarly activity – includes, in relation to a discipline or learning and teaching practice: original research; publications and presentations based on original research; published surveys of others’ research publications; editing or reviewing others’ research publications; leading advanced professional development activities; contributing to professional bodies or communities of practice; undertaking a qualification, at a higher level than the staff member’s current qualifications, that leads to a scholarly output; individual or collaborative activities and reflective practice to keep up with developments in a field; undertaking advanced specialised practice or a scholarly secondment.
20. Service teaching: when one academic unit teaches a subject in a course managed by another academic unit, or one academic unit collaborates with another academic unit in teaching a subject.
21. Session – includes any session, term or other teaching period in which subjects are delivered.
22. Short course – a learning activity or series of learning activities, for which students may receive a certificate of completion but which is/are not recorded as a subject with a grade on a formal transcript of results.
23. Single subject – a subject when a student is enrolled in it on a non-award basis.
24. Subject documents – the documents submitted for academic approval of a new subject or change to a subject.
25. Teaching faculty – the faculty that manages the course in question, or to which the teaching school belongs.
26. Teaching school – the school that teaches the subject offering in question; see also Convening school.
27. Work integrated learning (WIL) – any learning activity in which students engage in realistic work activities or activities closely related to work.
    1. WIL activities include workplace learning and simulated work activities such as simulated workplaces, role-plays and case studies.
    2. A WIL learning activity must involve partnership between the teaching school and an employer to design, deliver and/or assess students’ performance in the activity.
28. Workplace learning (WPL) – a type of WIL activity in which students experience an occupational role and its responsibilities in a real workplace or community service. To be considered WPL, a learning activity must meet:
    1. the definition of WIL in subclause (7)aa. above; and
    2. the detailed requirements for design of WPL in subjects stated in the Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure.

Section 3 - Policy

Academic governance of courses and subjects

(8) Academic Senate oversees the academic quality of the University’s courses and subjects and their compliance with the relevant standards and regulations.

(9) Academic Senate has delegated responsibilities for course and subject quality assurance as follows:

1. The Indigenous Board of Studies oversees the quality of Indigenous content in courses and subjects: the Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy states detailed requirements for this oversight.
2. University Courses Committee approves course documents and subject documents from faculties for new courses, changes to courses, new subjects and changes to subjects; decides whether courses will be reaccredited following comprehensive course review; and oversees:
   1. compliance of courses with the relevant standards and regulations;
   2. faculty review of courses; and
   3. faculties’ work to ensure courses maintain professional accreditation.
3. University Learning and Teaching Committee:
   1. monitors academic staff levels of scholarly activity;
   2. receives reports from faculties on subject reflections;
   3. receives reports on faculties’ monitoring of academic quality in courses delivered in partnership with third parties.
4. University Research Committee approves course documents and subject documents from faculties for new higher degree by research (HDR) courses, changes to HDR courses, new research component subjects for HDR courses and changes to these; decides whether HDR courses will be reaccredited following comprehensive course review; and oversees:
   1. compliance of HDR courses with the relevant standards and regulations;
   2. faculty review of HDR courses; and
   3. faculties’ work to ensure HDR courses maintain professional accreditation.
5. Faculty Boards oversee the academic quality and review of courses and subjects managed by the faculty, through their standing committee and Faculty Courses Committee.

(10) The terms of reference of the committees mentioned in the above list provide more detail on these responsibilities. The section on ‘Course and subject development, approval and phasing out’ in this policy provides more detail on the role of these committees and positions in endorsing and approving academic proposals for courses and subjects.

External advisory committees

(11) Each course or group of courses will have an external advisory committee so that development and improvement of the course are informed by current industry or professional knowledge and community needs.

(12) Faculty Courses Committees will report annually to University Courses Committee on external advisory committee activities.

(13) The Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure states detailed requirements for the membership and functions of external advisory committees, while the Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states how external advisory committees will contribute to course reviews.

Courses managed by divisions

(14) Where it is necessary for a course to be managed by an administrative division of the University rather than by a faculty, academic governance and academic management of the course will be handled as follows:

1. For academic governance committee approvals and oversight, the course will be aligned with a faculty. The faculty’s academic governance committees will make decisions and oversee quality of the course in the same way as they do for courses managed by the faculty.
2. Academic decisions will be made by a position approximately equivalent in level to the position stated as the decision-maker in the relevant academic policy or procedure. That is:
   1. a decision allocated to a head of school, associate dean, academic or sub-dean will be made by a director, associate director, deputy pro vice-chancellor or sub-dean who reports directly to the head of the division;
   2. a decision allocated to a deputy dean or chair of a Faculty Assessment Committee, Faculty Courses Committee or Faculty Research Committee will be made by the head of the division (an executive director or pro vice-chancellor); and
   3. a decision allocated to an executive dean will be made by the head of the division (an executive director or pro vice-chancellor).

Course and subject design

(15)  Courses leading to awards will:

1. comply with the Australian Qualifications Framework qualification specifications for those awards;
2. comply with the expectations of section 1.4 Learning Outcomes and Assessment and section 3.1 Course Design of the Higher Education Standards Framework; and
3. comply with requirements for professional accreditation, where relevant.

(16) To ensure that courses are as far as possible a unique offering in relation to their student market and industry or profession, they will be designed:

1. in consultation with employers and practitioners in the industry; and
2. on the basis of data and information about the needs and expectations of the prospective student market; and forecast workforce demand, jobs growth and capability requirements.

(17)  The Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure states detailed requirements for design of coursework courses and subjects.

(18) The Higher Degree by Research Policy states detailed requirements for design of higher degree by research courses and their research component subjects.

Course and subject admission requirements

(19) The Admissions Policy states the entry requirements for types of courses, and provides for the setting of higher and/or additional requirements for specific courses.

Maximum periods for completion of courses

(20) The University has a responsibility to ensure that:

1. each graduate’s award certifies current knowledge and skills in the discipline at the time of the award; and
2. students complete awards within a reasonable maximum period, allowing for part-time study and leave of absence.

(21) Accordingly, the Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure states the maximum period for completion of each type of course.

(22) The Higher Degree by Research Policy states the minimum and maximum period of candidature for each type of higher degree by research course.

(23)  A student’s enrolment or candidature may be terminated if they do not complete their course within the maximum period: see the Assessment - Academic Progress Procedure and Higher Degree by Research Policy.

Awards with honours or distinction

(24) Bachelor (honours) degrees will be awarded with levels of honours (class 1; class 2, division 1; class 2, division 2; or class 3).

(25) For courses with a volume of learning of 64 points or more, other than honours courses and doctoral courses, the award may be made with distinction to students who achieve a grade average of Distinction or better.

(26) The Graduation Policy states detailed requirements and conditions for awarding with distinction.

Non-award offerings

(27) Academic and administrative units of the University may offer short courses and single subject enrolments, provided these have been approved by the relevant approval pathway in the table of course and subject approval authorities below.

(28) Information about non-award offerings, and certificates issued for completing them, must not imply that participants will receive an award of the University.

(29) Study for a non-award offering may, however, be assessed for credit towards a subject, on the conditions stated in the Credit Policy.

(30) The Non Award Offerings Policy states requirements for certification of non-award offerings.

Course and subject development, approval and phasing out

(31) The bodies and roles in the course and subject approval table after clause (37) below are authorised to endorse and approve the various types of course and subject proposal.

(32) Approval of a course proposal by University Courses Committee or University Research Committee constitutes accreditation of the course on behalf of Academic Senate.

(33) The Office of the Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) maintains instructions, time lines and templates for submission and approval of:

1. notices of intent to develop a new course or new offering of an existing course; 
2. business cases to develop a new course, add a new offering of an existing course or add a major or specialisation to an existing course;
3. business cases to suspend and phase out a course or offering of a course; and
4. suspending an admission intake for a course or course offering.

(34) In considering a proposal to phase out a course or course offering, the decision-maker will, as far as is practicable, ensure that students currently enrolled in the course or offering:

1. are informed about the need to phase it out and arrangements for teach-out or to transfer them to a different course or course offering; and
2. have a reasonable time frame in which to complete it if they choose not to transfer to a different course or course offering.

(35) The chairs of University Courses Committee and University Research Committee will report annually to Academic Senate on new courses and changes to courses approved by their committee.

(36) The Course and Subject Life-cycle Procedure will state the processes to approve:

1. changes to subject outlines;
2. service teaching arrangements;
3. short courses; and
4. cancellation of residential schools and changes to residential schools.

(37) The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy states the role of the Indigenous Board of Studies in:

1. approving course proposals as compliant with the Indigenous Cultural Competency Pedagogical Framework, as a precondition for endorsement of the proposal by the Faculty Courses Committee; and
2. approving applications for subjects to be classified as Indigenous Australian studies subjects.

Table of approval authorities

Professional accreditation

(38) The executive dean of the teaching faculty will ensure that the faculty maintains the professional accreditation of courses that have such accreditation unless University Courses Committee approves a proposal to allow the professional accreditation to lapse.

(39) Each faculty will inform University Courses Committee of impending professional reaccreditation activities and their outcomes.
 

Service teaching

(40) To ensure high standards in teaching and research, and avoid duplication, specialists in a discipline or profession will normally be concentrated in a single academic unit. It should be unusual for an academic unit to employ academics in fields peripheral to its stated disciplines and professional courses.

(41) Faculties will negotiate service teaching arrangements where courses need to include subjects in disciplines and/or professional studies based in other faculties or another school in the same faculty.

(42) Where a discipline needs to be contextualised for a particular profession, the service teaching arrangement will provide for team teaching involving staff of both the discipline and the professional course.

(43) The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy states which types of Indigenous Australian studies subjects and modules within subjects must be taught by the School of Indigenous Australian Studies.

(44) The Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure states detailed requirements for service teaching.

(45) The Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure states requirements for service teaching arrangements between academic units.

Course and subject delivery and management

(46) The Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will approve:

1. the University’s academic calendar for delivery of subjects and related activities; and
2. the principles for preparation of the academic calendar.

(47) The Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure lists the University’s academic leadership roles and states detailed requirements for:

1. preparing and recommending the academic calendar, scheduling of residential schools and online intensives, and services for residential school;
2. teaching staff qualifications;
3. service teaching;
4. workplace learning;
5. use of external educational technologies;
6. English language, literacy and numeracy support; and
7. approval of students’ international study.

(48) The Indigenous Australian Content in Courses and Subjects Policy states requirements for ensuring that, where relevant, staff who design and/or deliver Indigenous Australian content have the necessary cultural competency.

(49) The Standards, Expectations and Qualifications Policy – Academic Staff states, for each level of academic position, the expected:

1. level of qualification;
2. record of academic achievement; and
3. level of contribution to academic activities, teaching, supervision, academic management and leadership, and scholarship.

Consistency of delivery

(50) Each delivery of a course at a location or via a mode of delivery will be consistent with the course as currently approved. It will require students to complete the same required subjects and will have the same course learning outcomes.

(51) Each delivery of a subject at a location or via a mode of delivery will be consistent with the subject as currently approved. It will offer students the same learning experience and learning outcomes, and will, as far as possible, require the same assessment tasks.

1. Where, however, it is necessary for a subject offering in a different delivery mode to use a different assessment task, it will test the same learning outcomes, at the same level of challenge, as the task in other offerings of the subject.

Levels of scholarly activity

(52) Heads of school will report annually to the Faculty Board on staff levels of scholarly activity, specifically:

1. the numbers of staff who teach or supervise in subjects offered by the school who are, and who are not, maintaining the level of scholarly activity required by the Standards, Expectations and Qualifications Policy – Academic Staff for their level of academic role;
2. for staff who are not maintaining the expected level of scholarly activity, how their level of activity will be improved; and
3. activities in the school to support staff in raising their levels of scholarly activity.

(53) The Faculty Board will provide an annual report collated from heads’ of schools reports to University Learning and Teaching Committee, which in turn will forward it to Academic Senate.

Academic staff qualifications and equivalent professional experience

(54) Staff who teach and/or assess students in any subject for any award course offered by the University (including courses offered with third parties), must have:

1. the level of qualification required by section 3.2 of the Higher Education Standards Framework; or
2. a combination of qualification and experience assessed as equivalent to the above by the executive dean of the teaching faculty or their nominee for such assessments.

(55) The Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure states:

1. the qualifications required to teach or assess in coursework subjects and in research components of coursework courses;
2. exceptions to the above requirements for guest staff and workplace educators; and
3. requirements for assessment of equivalence of qualifications and professional experience.

(56) The Higher Degree by Research Policy states the qualifications required to supervise higher degree by research candidates.

Conscientious objection

(57) Where a student has a conscientious objection to a learning activity or assessment task:

1. they may raise this by the process and in the time frame stated in the Course and Subject Conscientious Objection Procedure; and
2. the teaching school and, as relevant, convening school will assess the student’s objection, and consider whether it can provide an alternative learning activity and/or assessment task, by the process stated in that procedure.

Course and subject surveys

(58) The University uses students’ feedback on courses and subjects gathered by surveys to improve the curriculum, teaching and the student learning experience.

(59) The University administers the subject experience survey (SuES) to gather student feedback on each offering of each subject.

(60) Where a partner delivers subjects on behalf of Charles Sturt University:

1. the University will share SuES data for these subjects with the partner; and
2. the partner may administer additional surveys to students to collect data relevant to the partner’s operations, where this is provided for in the individual partnership agreement.

(61) Subject coordinators are encouraged, and may be directed by their faculty or school, to conduct their own surveys to understand students’ learning needs early in each session their subject is offered.

(62) The University provides the Department of Education with student details necessary for the department to administer the following surveys to Charles Sturt University students each year:

1. the graduate destinations survey; and
2. the student experience survey.

(63) The University receives data from these federally administered surveys and uses it to identify improvements.

(64) Other surveys of students’ learning and teaching experience may be used if the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) has approved their use.

Subject experience survey (SuES)

(65) The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) or their nominee will manage and regularly review the subject experience survey (SuES), in consultation with faculty academic leaders, the Division of Library Services, Division of Student Success, Office of Planning and Analytics and the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation).

(66) Student responses to the SuES will be de-identified in all uses of the data, other than where a student’s comments in their response:

1. raise concerns about their safety and wellbeing, or
2. may constitute student misconduct as defined by the Student Misconduct Rule 2020.

(67) SuES data may be used:

1. for evaluation and review of course and subject design, teaching practices and student support;
2. as a factor in decisions on whether to promote academic staff (the Academic Promotion Procedure and its supporting documents state how this may occur);
3. as a factor in performance management of academic staff (schedule IV to the Enterprise Agreement states how this may occur); and
4. for internal and external benchmarking.

(68) Faculties and schools will investigate the causes of low and high SuES average scores in subjects.

(69) The Federal Government and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency may require the University to report de-identified SuES data to them.

(70) De-identified SuES data may be used for research purposes, subject to Human Research Ethics Committee approval of the research.

(71) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states detailed requirements for:

1. administering the SuES, and
2. publishing or providing access to the data from the SuES.

Course and subject review and reaccreditation

(72) To ensure the quality, viability and relevance of courses, all courses or (as relevant) subjects will undergo the following monitoring and review activities:

1. annual course health check;
2. comprehensive course review (which must be completed and any improvements implemented within seven years of initial course approval or previous comprehensive review);
3. benchmarking; and
4. subject reflection (coursework subjects only; after each session in which a subject is offered).

(73) On the basis of the comprehensive course review report, University Courses Committee will decide whether to reaccredit the course.

(74) Where a course is also subject to external accreditation, comprehensive course reviews will as far as possible be aligned with external accreditation reviews to avoid duplicating work. In these cases, the comprehensive review will meet any of the University’s requirements for comprehensive review that are not met by the external accreditation review.

(75) Executive deans will ensure that courses and subjects undergo these reviews and quality assurance activities.

(76) Heads of school are responsible for ensuring that subjects undergo subject reflection.

(77) Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) may:

1. exempt a course from undergoing comprehensive review, for instance when it is being phased out; or
2. in exceptional circumstances, allow a course an extension on the dates by which it is scheduled to begin, submit or make improvements resulting from its comprehensive review.

(78) Where an annual course health check, benchmarking or comprehensive course review identifies a course as under-performing, the faculty will take prompt action to rectify this.

(79) The faculty will:

1. add to its faculty improvement plan any improvements to courses that health checks or comprehensive reviews identify as needed; and
2. provide its updated improvement plan regularly to University Courses Committee and to Academic Senate.

(80) A course is considered to be accredited by the University for:

1. the period between first approval and comprehensive review; and
2. where the outcome of a comprehensive review is that the course is reaccredited, from that time until the next scheduled comprehensive review.

(81) In addition, to ensure the academic quality of courses delivered with partners, annual review of partnerships will consider academic standards of course offerings and student experience in comparison with other offerings of the course.

(82) Where graduates of a course will need professional accreditation to practise, the executive dean will ensure the course is accredited and continues to be accredited.

(83) University Courses Committee will oversee:

1. progress with and outcomes of annual course health checks and comprehensive course reviews; and
2. professional accreditation activities.

(84) University Learning and Teaching Committee will receive reports from each Faculty Assessment Committee on subject reflections in the faculty.

(85) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states detailed requirements for annual course health checks, comprehensive course review, benchmarking and subject reflection.

Courses involving third parties

(86) Awards of the University delivered by a third party or in collaboration with a third party are subject to the same approval and review requirements as any other award of the University; but there is additional oversight of the academic quality of partnered deliveries, as follows:

1. Faculty Boards oversee academic quality assurance of third party delivery of courses and report annually on this to University Learning and Teaching Committee.
2. University Learning and Teaching Committee, in turn, provides an annual consolidated report on academic quality of partnered deliveries to Academic Senate.

(87) The Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure states requirements for quality assurance and review specific to third party course delivery, in addition to the quality assurance and review requirements that apply to all courses.

(88) The Awards Involving Third Parties Policy states the conditions on which another institution that has collaborated in delivery of a Charles Sturt University award can be acknowledged on the testamur.

Course and subject information

(89) The Course and Subject Information Procedure states requirements to ensure that information about courses and subjects is:

1. complete, accurate and of a consistently high standard, so it will form a sound basis for the enrolment contract with students;
2. published in good time for prospective and current students to make decisions about their applications, enrolment and to prepare for study; and
3. consistently and correctly recorded on university systems, so it will meet the requirements of regulators and funders and be a sufficient record of the University’s curriculum.

Referencing

(90) American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style is the default referencing style to be used in students’ assessment work.

(91) A discipline or subject may use a referencing style other than APA style where the Faculty Courses Committee approves the exception:

1. on the basis that the other style is prevalent in the discipline, or
2. for another compelling reason.

Section 4 - Procedures

(92) The following procedures state detailed requirements in support of this policy:

1. Course and Subject - Conscientious Objection Procedure;
2. Course and Subject Design (Coursework) Procedure;
3. Course and Subject Life Cycle Procedure;
4. Course and Subject Information Procedure;
5. Course and Subject Delivery and Management Procedure; and 
6. Course and Subject Quality Assurance and Review Procedure.

Section 5 - Guidelines

(93) Some of the procedures that support this policy include guidelines or refer readers to guidelines on specific topics in those procedures.