Body

What is it?

A hub for use by External Experts to streamline the exchange of work assignments between TEQSA and the Expert.

Getting started

To access the Portal:

1. You will receive the URL, username and password via email from TEQSA
2. Following this URL, you will be directed to the portal log in screen:

Type in the provided username and password.

For security purposes, you will be prompted to change this password after your first login. If your password is ever reset, you will be prompted to change it again at first login post password reset.

How do I use it?

Once logged in, your homepage will appear as follows:

The information displayed includes:

1. Name of expert logged in
2. Homepage
3. Displays all mutually signed Contracts (or Deeds of Standing Offer/Agreements as they are also called)
4. Displays your contact details. If you require any changes, please open this tab, enter the correct information and click ‘Submit Profile’. Any difficulties or change in email contact information, contact engaging.experts@teqsa.gov.au 
5. Displays links to key reference documents such as Australian Qualifications Framework, Threshold Standards etc and other useful websites
6. Displays TEQSA’s general enquiry details

How do I action a work assignment via the Portal?

When you receive an offer of a work assignment, it will appear on your homepage when you log on. You can access the assignment by clicking the ellipses and then clicking the ‘Respond to work assignment’ link.

A work assignment window looks as follows. TEQSA’s work offer/assignment brief/evidentiary documents will all appear under the ‘TEQSA Provided Documents’ section. You can click and download these. To insert your signed offer/completed assignment brief/invoice, upload into the ‘Expert Uploaded Documents’ section. Don’t forget to click the ‘Submit’ button to save your work.

NOTE: There is a 30 minute session timeout if the window is inactive.

Once you click ‘Submit’ you will no longer be able to access the work assignment so please ensure that you upload the final version of any documentation along with your invoice. 

If you submit your materials prematurely, please contact engaging.experts@teqsa.gov.au to request the work assignment be re-opened.

How do I update my details? 

To update your basic information, open the 'My Profile' tab and enter in the new information. Click 'Submit Profile' when complete. 

Please note that to update an email address, an email will need to be sent to engaging.experts@teqsa.gov.au with the correct information. 

Eligible browsers and operating systems

Please also note you need to use one of the following browsers to access the portal:

• For a PC: Chrome for Windows 35 or higher OR Internet Explorer 10 or higher
• For a MAC: Chrome for MAC 35 or higher

If you are uncertain what version and type of browser you are using, check at: www.whatismybrowser.com 

NOTE: If using Windows 8 and IE11, selected functions may not work. Use Chrome instead.

Having trouble?

Email engaging.experts@teqsa.gov.au

Body

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 January 2019 until 31 March 2019. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

Each week, TEQSA makes regulatory decisions. These may be on the registration of new providers or the reregistration of existing providers. For the providers that do not have the power to accredit their own courses, TEQSA also makes decisions whether to accredit or re-accredit their courses. There are many legal, compliance and quality assurance measures which a higher education provider must demonstrate in order for TEQSA to allow a provider entry to Australia’s higher education sector.

In order to make these decisions, TEQSA must be satisfied that a provider complies with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) and the Higher Education Standards Framework, the standards framework underpinning the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA’s regulatory approach is standards and principles-based. It is guided by three regulatory principles: regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation, when exercising its powers. TEQSA’s regulatory decisions are taken by its Commission, or by senior members of TEQSA staff under delegation from the Commission.

More information about TEQSA’s approach is available at Our regulatory approach page.

Where do I find more information about TEQSA’s decisions?

Detailed public reports on individual decisions are available on the National Register of higher education providers. 

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Decision Date	Provider	Decision Description	Number of Conditions	Period Length
7-Jan-19	Australian College of the Arts Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	-	7 years
15-Jan-19	Acknowledge Education Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
25-Jan-19	Australian Chiropractic College Limited	Accredit new course	-	5 years
25-Jan-19	Australian Chiropractic College Limited	Register new provider	7	5 years
1-Feb-19	Australian College of Christian Studies Ltd (formerly Tabor College (NSW) Ltd)	Accredit new course (x4)	2	7 years
6-Feb-19	Adelaide Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Register new provider	-	5 years
6-Feb-19	Adelaide Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	5 years
6-Feb-19	Melbourne Polytechnic (formerly Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE)	Renew registration of existing provider	3	4 years
18-Feb-19	Edith Cowan College Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
1-Mar-19	The Cairnmillar Institute	Accredit new course	-	7 years
6-Mar-19	Sicop Education & Technology Pty Ltd	Register new provider	1	5 years
6-Mar-19	Sicop Education & Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	5 years
22-Mar-19	Australian College of Nursing Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
22-Mar-19	UOWC Ltd (formerly ITC Education Ltd)	Accredit new course	-	7 years
27-Mar-19	Monash College Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
28-Mar-19	Australian College of the Arts Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	-	7 years
29-Mar-19	Kaplan Business School Pty Limited	Accredit new course (x4)	-	7 years

Body

Good Practice Note: Making higher education admissions transparent for prospective students – July 2019

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, TEQSA’s logo, any material protected by a trade mark, material sourced from third parties and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence.

Information about the use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Enquiries about the use of material protected by a trade mark or which has been sourced from a third party should be directed to the source of the relevant material.

The document must be attributed: Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Good Practice Note: Making higher education admissions transparent for prospective students – July 2019.

Contacts

More information about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, including electronic versions of this report, is available at teqsa.gov.au

Comments and enquiries about this report may be directed to:

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

Level 14/530 Collins Street MELBOURNE VIC 3001

T: 1300 739 585

F: 1300 739 586

E: comms@teqsa.gov.au

Provider resources

TEQSA’s role is to safeguard the interests of all students, current and future, studying within Australia’s higher education system. We do this by regulating and assuring the quality of Australia’s higher education providers.

In carrying out this work, we produce a number of resources aimed at supporting higher education providers understand their responsibilities under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework).

HES Framework

The HES Framework is a legislative instrument that is structured to align with the student experience or ‘student life cycle’. It sets out the requirements for provider entry to, and continued operations within, Australia’s higher education sector. The Standards for Higher Education within the HES Framework apply to all providers offering courses leading to a regulated higher education award, irrespective of where and how a course is delivered. All providers are required to demonstrate their adherence to the HES Framework.

Guidance notes

Guidance notes are intended to provide advice and greater clarity when interpreting and applying selected areas of the HES Framework. They are not intended to be ‘how to’ documents, instead they outline what TEQSA will typically expect to see when assessing providers’ compliance.

Good practice notes

Good practice notes offer practical advice and examples of good practice to guide operations in regard to specific, higher education issues. The best practice guides are intended to support and promote the quality assurance approaches of providers.

More information and guidance on the HES Framework and our regulatory approach can be found at teqsa.gov.au

Author’s note

It has been a pleasure to work with TEQSA in developing this Good Practice Note about admissions transparency. I feel strongly that the higher education sector must work together and help prospective students understand admission processes for them to make informed choices about their preferred provider and course. An Australia-wide approach with a consistent framework across the sector that allows individuality is vital; one which is student-centred rather than provider-driven, to help students succeed. Our aim must be to ensure that students make the best choices for themselves, are stimulated by their learning and educational experience, and can develop a career path that enables them to maximise their potential.

Work on admissions transparency came to a head in Australia in 2016 with examination by the Higher Education Standards Panel of the level of access by prospective students to clear, comparable information about course entry requirements and options across the Australian higher education sector. Much work has since been done; by the Australian Government, TEQSA and the sector itself. This Good Practice Note extends the Advice on Admissions Transparency that TEQSA released in February 2018 by including background information, links to key resources, and further suggestions illustrated with examples of good practice (current at the time of publication) that providers have put in place.

In reviewing websites, it is apparent that all providers have started implementing the commitments made through the implementation plan developed by the sector-led Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (July 2017). There are many examples of good practice throughout the sector, and the ones selected are examples that others may find helpful; it is not an exhaustive list. The providers whose examples are used have not necessarily put all the recommendations in place but they have made a good start, and I hope that this Good Practice Note will be helpful to all providers.

My thanks go to all those who contributed directly and indirectly. A special thank you to Australian higher education providers for taking on the important task of reorganising and updating their websites and other materials to improve admissions transparency for students. My thanks to Anthony McClaran, Dr Karen Treloar, Dr Jen Drysdale, Ashley Orr and Dr Carolyn Malkin at TEQSA for their help and feedback, which is much appreciated. Many thanks to my family (Kevin, Sally and Catherine) who have gone above, and beyond, in various ways to help finalise the Good Practice Note. Many thanks also to my colleagues Dr Lin Martin and Dr Kerry Ferguson who provided feedback on drafts and helped in many ways.

This Good Practice Note does not have all the answers to make admission processes transparent from a student’s perspective. However, I hope it helps higher education providers to think about their websites, brochures and other written information; about whether their staff have been trained, sufficiently, to communicate advice to prospective students effectively, regardless of their background; and, most of all, to consider getting current and prospective student input to help them ensure they provide effective advice that students will understand.

Janet Beard

Tertiary Education Consultant and Honorary Senior Fellow, LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management, University of Melbourne

Foreword

TEQSA’s fundamental purpose is to safeguard student interests and the reputation of Australia’s higher education sector. We do this by assuring the quality of higher education through a proportionate, risk-reflective approach to regulation - an approach that encourages diversity, innovation and excellence while allowing providers to pursue their individual missions. This good practice note,  the second in a series of resources produced by TEQSA, aims to further support and promote the quality assurance approaches of providers in relation to admissions transparency.

Following its acceptance of recommendations from the Higher Education Standards Panel, the Government funded TEQSA to assist with the implementation of improved transparency of admissions processes from 2017 to 2021. TEQSA was also a member of the sector-led, Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group, which was established to develop and oversee a plan to put the Panel’s recommendations into action. The plan required TEQSA to conduct a formative evaluation in 2017 and then to conduct a summative evaluation of the sector’s responses to the Panel’s recommendations, later in 2019, with a report back to the Minister for Education in March 2020.

Admissions transparency means that prospective domestic undergraduate students can easily find good quality admissions information that allows them to compare courses and providers and make informed study choices. Without the right admissions information, prospective students may not even apply for a course, or they may make decisions that result in them dropping out, leading to poor student retention and reduced learning outcomes.

TEQSA engaged Janet Beard, an expert in higher education admissions policy and practice, to review provider implementation of the admissions transparency requirements and identify examples of good practice in April 2019. The publication of this Good Practice Note is timely as providers continue to implement the Panel’s recommendations on admissions transparency in the period leading up to September 2019, when TEQSA will embark on its summative evaluation of the sector’s success in a greater degree of transparency in admissions.

TEQSA remains committed to supporting providers to implement the admissions transparency recommendations. In addition to this good practice note and our Advice on Admissions Transparency, our Sector Assessment Team is available to answer any questions regarding implementation and the summative evaluation.

On behalf of all of us at TEQSA, I would like to thank Janet for her work and commend this Good Practice Note on admissions transparency for the consideration of all interested stakeholders.

Anthony McClaran

Chief Executive Officer

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

Purpose

This Good Practice Note is intended to complement the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency’s (TEQSA) Advice on Admissions Transparency (February 2018).

The phrase ‘admissions transparency’ refers to Australian higher education providers presenting clear information which helps prospective domestic undergraduate students, regardless of their background, understand the criteria and processes for admission to the providers’ courses. Such information should be clear, transparent and easily understood. Prospective students must be able to understand the information and compare providers and courses to enable them to make informed study choices. Information should also be presented so that parents, teachers and career advisers are able to understand the information so that they can support and assist students to make decisions about courses and providers.

This Good Practice Note presents Australian higher education providers with exemplars and specific practical advice to assist them to make the processes for admission to higher education institutions transparent for prospective students. Admissions transparency relates to the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework) and the relevant standards are outlined in Attachment 1. The advice in this Good Practice Note is aligned with the HES Framework and is focused on four main areas:

• Accessibility
• Consistency and comparability
• Data presentation and quality
• How applicants are assessed

Context

In October 2016, at the request of the Minister for Education and Training, the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) made recommendations to achieve greater transparency in higher education admissions for prospective domestic undergraduate students in a report called Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions. A sector-led working group, the Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (IWG), was established to develop an implementation plan as a practical response (Final Admissions Transparency Plan, June 2017), the principles of which all key stakeholders endorsed. The Group subsequently provided updated common terminology and data definitions for use by providers, a glossary for public use, and admission information sets for each institution as a whole, and for their courses (Admissions Transparency Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets, July 2018).

Providers have been implementing the sector commitments and this Good Practice Note is intended to offer further assistance.  The Good Practice Note is guided by the principles proposed by the HESP, which undertook the initial work on admissions transparency:

• A student-centred approach to the provision of information about admissions.
• Higher education providers have autonomy over their admissions policies, consistent with the requirements set out in the Higher Education Standards Framework.
• Access to clear information relating to admissions requirements and various entry pathways is to be made available to all applicants equally.
• The arrangements set out in [the] implementation plan apply equally to all higher education providers, universities and non-university higher education providers alike.
• Higher education providers are accountable for public claims against their stated admission policies.
• Improved transparency of higher education admissions policies and compliance with the terms of [the] implementation plan are not intended to add regulatory red-tape over and above what is necessary to comply with the Higher Education Standards Framework.

Background

An increase in the diversity of Australia’s higher education provision and admission processes, especially following the introduction of the demand-driven funding system for undergraduate Commonwealth-supported places in 2009, has occurred. Under the demand-driven system, more Australians were able to gain entry to higher education, mainly public universities, by a variety of pathways. To add to the complexity of choice, there has been significant growth in independent and TAFE providers over the past 20 years. This expansion in the number and diversity of providers and courses provides welcome opportunities for prospective students. In the process, admissions requirements have become more complex and harder to understand, making it difficult for prospective students to make informed decisions about study.

The challenges have included a lack of comparable information about higher education entry requirements and the complexity of approaches, alternative pathways, career possibilities, support services available, and other student cohort information. In particular, there has been a lack of clarity about the use of the Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR ) and the basis on which adjustment factors (previously known as bonus points) are awarded by universities. This lack of clarity has led to controversy and media commentary (Australian Associated Press 2018; Bagshaw and Ting 2016; Robinson 2018).

An important issue with admissions transparency is to ensure that entry into higher education is equitable, and that no type of student is favoured over another through admission processes based on gender, cultural background, socio-economic circumstances or demographic background. Harvey et al. (2016) note that with increasing diversity of admissions comes increasing opacity and a consequent risk of inequity. Harvey and Brett’s (2016, p.2) submission to the HESP about tertiary admissions emphasises that ‘The admissions system cannot be improved without recognising the importance of student equity’.

Harvey et al. (2016) also note the growth of ‘contextual’ admissions, where admissions pathways draw on contextual data such as the geo-demographic background of an applicant, school attended, and so on, to take account of the diverse circumstances of applicants and address any equity issues such as low socio economic status.

Similar to Australia, there has been a drive in both the UK and the US to move away from admissions systems depending on final school results and take other factors into account. In the case of the UK, the drive has been to use more contextual, individual data. The US has followed an ‘holistic review’ to use both cognitive and non-cognitive factors, in part to address race-conscious affirmative action to achieve cultural diversity. In Australia, around 70% of school leaver applications are still determined on ATAR alone.

In the UK, Steven Schwartz chaired the Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group [AHESG] that made recommendations to the Government for good practice in admissions. Their report recommended that all universities and colleges should adopt six principles of fair admissions, the first of which was that ‘a fair admissions system should be transparent’ (AHESG 2004, p. 7). In the US, numerous newspaper reports exist about bias against race, with examples being the Chronicle of Higher Education (Hoover 2019) and The Conversation (Perez-Felkner 2019). Other reports, such as those in The Guardian (Reeves 2019) and The New York Times (Medina, Benner & Taylor 2019), suggest that wealthy parents can buy a place in top universities and that legacy systems exist where the admission chances of children of alumni are boosted. Such reports indicate a concern about the lack of admissions transparency. Further information about the work undertaken to address admissions transparency and a timeline are in Attachment 2.

Implementation objectives

Australian Government-led initiatives

In February 2016 the Minister for Education and Training commissioned the HESP to advise ‘on options to improve the transparency of higher education student admissions, while minimising regulatory burden’. Following extensive consultation with higher education and secondary education stakeholders, the HESP released its report Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions (October 2016). The Panel’s report placed students firmly at the centre of the admissions process and made 14 recommendations that the Panel advised were intended to:

• Achieve greater transparency through the use of common language about admissions processes and the publication of consistent information.
• Widen the accessibility of information to prospective students.
• Improve the comparability of information available from providers about their admissions processes and entry requirements.
• Enhance the accountability of higher education providers for the information they publish about their admissions policies.
• Ensure all higher education providers are subject to the same reporting requirements.
• Give students, parents, teachers and career advisors the knowledge and capacity to more easily navigate higher education admissions policies and processes.

One of the initiatives undertaken by the Government ‘to make finding information on higher education courses easier than ever’ is the development of the Course Seeker website. This provides information about providers and their courses from across Australia to enable, in effect, a ‘one stop shop’ for prospective students. Course Seeker also provides links to providers’ websites for further information about their courses and services. Nearly half of Australia’s providers are currently included in Course Seeker with the remainder being added progressively. The providers who are currently included are predominantly universities, which account for more than 90 per cent of the higher education student population, and hence the majority of prospective students are already being catered for by Course Seeker with the remainder to follow as further providers are included.

Course Seeker offers information about admission requirements by course and institution, and filters can be applied to help applicants narrow options by, for example, the state in which they wish to study, the type of course, the admissions criteria applicable to the prospective student, study mode, and so on. Up to four courses can be selected and compared side by side, similar to websites such as Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT), which ‘provides prospective students with relevant and transparent information about Australian higher education institutions from the perspective of recent students and graduates’. The QILT website is a further resource for students to make comparisons between institutions and study areas to help them select their preferred course and institution; data are provided on student experience, graduate satisfaction and graduate employment at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Providers are recommended to provide a link to QILT, as well as Course Seeker.

Upon requests from providers, TEQSA also developed a checklist (Admissions Transparency Checklist) which is designed to assist providers in developing information for prospective students to ensure they have covered all aspects of admissions transparency.

Sector-led initiatives

Over the course of 2017 and 2018, six agreed objectives were to be delivered through the actions set out in the IWG’s Final Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan (June 2017) and the further report which provided an updated specification of requirements in Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets (July 2018) (hereafter, this document will be referred to as the updated specification). These objectives were to be adopted by providers by May 2018:

1. Consistent presentation of admissions information.
2. Adoption of common admissions terminology.
3. Revised ATAR-related thresholds and definitions.
4. Tertiary admission centres (TACs) to adopt more consistent approaches and reporting and streamline interstate application processes.
5. TEQSA monitoring and guidance on improved admissions transparency.
6. A new national admissions information platform (established and found at the Department of Education and Training’s Course Seeker website).

The IWG also released quick reference documents regarding the changes that prospective higher education students will see in 2019 and beyond.

These documents are intended for different audiences and are available from the Department of Education’s website, as follows:

• Student learner guide
• Student with work and life experience learner guide
• Career adviser learner guide.

Examples of good practice

In addition to the materials developed around admissions transparency described in the previous sections, this Good Practice Note has been developed to highlight examples of good practice demonstrated by providers to help all providers fully implement the sector commitments to admissions transparency for prospective domestic undergraduate students. The examples provided are not necessarily consistent in every respect with the IWG recommendations but give very good examples of particular aspects of good practice. The examples are also not exhaustive; many other examples exist.

This document provides good practice examples and further advice, grouped into four categories:

• Accessibility
• Consistency and comparability
• Data presentation and quality
• How applicants are assessed.

A checklist to assist providers to implement admissions transparency requirements is in Attachment 3.

Accessibility

Admissions information on a website or in a brochure is considered transparent and accessible if a prospective student can easily find the information they need to make a decision to apply for a course and choose their preferred provider, and can readily understand the language used.

The most important thing is to use simple and clear language in describing how applicants are assessed for a course and how they apply, whether this is in written materials or is used by staff emailing or talking with prospective students. When preparing materials, it is helpful to try to put oneself in the shoes of a prospective student and try to view the information through their eyes, rather than describe everything the provider offers. That is, try to be student-driven rather than provider- driven in developing and presenting information.

Good practice example 1: Admissions information is presented for the four academic background categories

Information for prospective students should be grouped for presentation to students from the different academic backgrounds as per the glossary at Appendix B in the updated specification and also attached to this Good Practice Note in Attachment 4.

• Group A - Higher education study
• Group B - Vocational education and training (VET) study
• Group C - Work and life experience
• Group D - Recent secondary education (within the past two years).

A description of each category should be provided so that prospective students can decide which category best applies to them. For example, ATARs are only used in admissions for applicants whose secondary education is within the last two years. If a student has an older ATAR, they should look to the information under the other three categories to find the information best suited to their needs.

Curtin University’s home page has a clear heading of ‘Future Students’ at the top of the page, from which a prospective student can choose ‘Undergraduate’ as an option and land on the page shown in Figure 1 which clearly establishes at the outset the four backgrounds from which students can search for further information. Alternatively, the student can select ‘How to Apply’ from the home page and reach the same page with just one click.

Curtin lists the four backgrounds in a different sequence to that above which is fine in this context as they are being used as a springboard for a person to find more information depending on their academic background. This is consistent with the advice given in the information set mock-ups (Appendices C and D of the updated specification) that the order is optional. If displaying information about the student and ATAR profiles described in Appendices C and D, then it is recommended to follow the order in the templates to make it easier for prospective students to compare providers. These profiles will be discussed in more detail throughout this Note.

Figure 1: Curtin University’s General Admissions Landing Page

Source: https://futurestudents.curtin.edu.au/undergraduate/

Edith Cowan University (Figure 2) explains the options for prospective students and a little about each category whilst noting at the start that ‘you don’t have to meet all of the points listed’, which is encouraging for prospective students. A drop-down menu under each academic background elaborates on the entry requirements.

Figure 2: Edith Cowan University – What Are My Options?

Source: https://www.ecu.edu.au/future-students/applying

Good practice example 2: Admissions information is easily accessible from the homepage

It is vital to enable prospective students to easily understand information about admissions by having a clear and simple provider website with features as follows:

• Make the location of admissions information obvious from the provider’s homepage using suitable headings, for example: ‘Future Students’, ‘Admissions Information’, ‘Apply’, ‘How to Apply’ or ‘Study’ (Curtin University is an example as shown in Figure 1).
• Avoid the use of jargon which is used in the sector and by providers as headings such as ‘Admissions Transparency’ or ‘Information Sets’ as this will mean little to prospective students as a trigger to find out more. Such language could be used in text, if elaborated. Also, avoid headings that assume that students understand TEQSA’s existence and its role, for example: ‘TEQSA information’ or ‘TEQSA Admissions’.
• Remove any obstacles to easy access, such as the need to register and provide contact details before access to information is made available. This can be off- putting and deter people from going further. People may be concerned about their privacy, and/or concerned they will be hassled and pushed to make a decision before they are ready.

Bond University has an example of a clear and easily navigable website (Figure 3). ‘Future Students’ is a clear heading at the top of the home page. When ‘Future Students’ is selected, the mouse can hover over ‘Study at Bond’ where the reader has a range of options and can decide whether they would like to look at, for example, ‘Undergraduate programs’, ‘Open Day’, ‘Campus tours’ or ‘Undergraduate admissions criteria’. In addition, the narrative under ‘Experience Bond University’ is warm and welcoming with phrases to attract prospective students (‘You are always visible’, ‘Your lecturers will know you’), and their parents who are encouraged to feel their children will be looked after.

Figure 3: Options to choose from ‘Future Students’ at Bond University

Source: https://bond.edu.au/future-students

Good practice example 3: Websites are easily navigable to access information about admissions to different courses

In addition to landing on a home page and finding a heading that takes the reader to information about admissions, there are further things to consider in terms of navigating the website. An overarching consideration is to minimise the number of clicks required to navigate the website.

• Consolidate similar information on one page rather than spreading it across a number of pages. That is, in order to obtain the information a prospective student requires, keep the number of pages the student needs to access to a minimum.
• A common style should be maintained across academic and administrative divisions to make it simple for prospective students to navigate easily between information about courses offered by different academic divisions. Clear links should be provided from the homepage to admissions information that is presented on a provider’s website, especially where that site has different styles or domains from the homepage, or from the homepage to other providers where relevant.
• Ensure that information about whole-of-institution admissions is located at a higher level, or on a separate page, than course-specific admissions information. Where relevant, links from course-specific admissions information to whole-of-institution admissions information should be provided.

Kent Institute Australia (Kent) illustrates locating whole-of-institution information on one page with course specific information on a separate page. Figure 4 shows a summary page of admissions information for Kent as a whole, which is reached by holding the mouse over ‘Applying’ at the top of the home page and clicking on ‘Admissions Criteria’. If the mouse hovers over the heading ‘Courses’, followed by ‘Higher Education Courses’, then information can be followed through for each course offered by Kent. For each course offered, the student is directed back to the whole-of-institution admissions information via a drop-down under ‘Academic requirements’ shown in Figure 5 using the four academic backgrounds discussed in Good Practice Example 1. If expressions such as ‘mature age’ are used in a higher education provider’s description of student background, then they should be linked to the relevant academic background category, which is ‘work and life experience’ as is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Whole-of-Institution Admissions Information on Separate Pages from Course-Specific Information – Kent Institute Australia

Source: http://kent.edu.au/kent3/entry-requirements/

 

Figure 5: Whole-of-Institution Admissions Information Obtained From Course-Specific Information (Bachelor of Business) – Kent Institute Australia

Source: http://kent.edu.au/kent3/course-bachelor-of-business/

Ensure that all information relevant to prospective students is accessible to the public and not in course information for current students. This should include information about:

• Course and unit details (often provided in handbooks)
• Important dates (including closing dates for applications)
• Appeals and grievances procedures
• Deferral
• Fees and charges
• Student services that may support a prospective student to study (for example, access to childcare, disability support, student grants, scholarships, and links to study allowance).

An option to explore the support services that Charles Sturt University (CSU) offers can be found with two clicks from the home page (Figure 6). A further click, or access via Uni Life from Future Students, leads the reader to a summary list of services shown in Figure 7 with the option to find out more information about each.  A helpful addition to this, and the websites of other providers, would be to include childcare services as this can be a deciding factor for many prospective students, and helps to encourage diversity and opportunity.

Figure 6: Summary Advice About Support Offered by Charles Sturt University

Source: https://futurestudents.csu.edu.au/undergraduate#3093073

 

Figure 7: Support Services Offered by Charles Sturt University

Source: https://futurestudents.csu.edu.au/unilife/support

Good practice example 4: Provide simple opportunities to obtain additional information

Other useful features to consider which would assist people to obtain further information about admissions are:

• Consider facilitating access to information about admission requirements by providing a search function, a site map or a course finder facility. Many providers have a drop-down finder option whilst searching for information on specific topics in case the reader decides to change track and follow another lead. The drop-down appears whenever the reader starts scrolling down a new page. An example of the search function appearing at the top is shown in Figure 8 for the Australian Catholic University (ACU).

Figure 8: Opportunities for Further Information at Australian Catholic University

Source: https://www.acu.edu.au/study-at-acu/admission-pathways

ACU also provides opportunities to ask questions and find out more information via ‘Frequently asked questions’ (FAQs), email through AskACU, live chat, phone or SMS shown in Figure 8. If AskACU is accessed, it provides all these opportunities for further information and includes face-to-face enquiries at the University’s various campuses as well (Figure 9). The drop-down finder described earlier enables a further search of ACU’s website in case a student decides to do this before contacting the University.

Figure 9: AskACU - Australian Catholic University

Source: https://acu.service-now.com/askacu

• Consider providing an email address and contact number for prospective students to ask questions about admission and describe the location of student administration offices which deal with queries from prospective students and the campus where relevant; ACU is a good example (Figure 9).
• Consider providing a link to the Open Day page all year round so that prospective students know what date it will be and can plan accordingly. Figure 10 shows an example from Collarts; an Open Day drop-down option is an option on the home page. Scrolling down below the image shown there is a heading which says ‘Begin your career in…’, below which it describes the nine creative areas in which Collarts offers courses describing them in terms of ‘learn how to create / mix / manage / implement…..’ depending on the creative area. These are practical descriptions of what a student could expect to learn and achieve from the courses, and the Open Day option on the same page lets them know when they could visit Collarts to find out more.

Figure 10: Collarts (College of the Arts Pty Ltd) Home Page With Open Day as an Option to Select

Source: https://www.collarts.edu.au/ 

Federation University adopts a different approach. A banner on the home page shows several highlights, one of which advertises ‘Open Day Every Day’ as shown in Figure 11. When ‘Register Now’ is clicked, a warm and inviting message is shown. Whilst it requires registering, its message is about showing you around and filling you in on options. If you prefer to search the website for information, that is also available by area of interest or course, so it doesn’t feel like a sales pitch.

Figure 11: Open Day Every Day – Federation University

Source: https://federation.edu.au and https://federation.edu.au/openday

• If appropriate, include information about other ways in which prospective students can get to know the provider and the courses they offer, through information nights, virtual tours, campus tours, ‘student for a day’ sessions, or maps for self-guided tours.

Returning to Figure 3, Bond University is a good example of providing links to an array of information for prospective students. Bond University is also a good example of a provider demonstrating engaging with parents (‘Information for Parents’) and secondary schools (eg ‘Experience Day’, ‘Year 12 Extension Program’, ‘Headstart Day’). The activities also demonstrate ways of involving current students, for example, the Campus Tours are led by a Bond Student Ambassador.

Good practice example 5: Links from the provider’s page to the Tertiary Admission Centre should be direct to the provider’s page

It would be very helpful to prospective students if a link from a provider’s web page to the relevant TAC takes them to the provider’s page on the TAC, and not the TAC homepage. This would save them then having to navigate through the TAC’s website in order to find the relevant institution and course. A smart-link can be obtained from the TAC so that if the TAC rearranged its website in some way, the link would still transfer the student from the provider’s website to the relevant TAC page in which they were interested.

Figure 12 illustrates this navigation for Charles Sturt University (CSU) and the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC) in New South Wales. The links shown require three clicks from CSU’s home page to reach CSU on the UAC website whether the reader goes via ‘Undergraduate’ and searches for a course, say Bachelor of Arts, to the UAC page with information about CSU, or if they start with entering, for example, Arts into the search engine on the home page.

Figure 12: A Link from CSU’s Website Takes the Viewer Directly to CSU on the UAC Website, Not UAC’s Home Page

Source 1: https://futurestudents.csu.edu.au/courses/humanities-social-sciences/ba…

Source 2: https://www.uac.edu.au/index.php/future-applicants/institutions/charles…

Good practice example 6: Provide information for students with different needs

Prospective students who have different needs must be able to access information which would help them with their application and understand how they would be supported if admitted to the institution. For example:

• Information on websites should be accessible to a wide range of people with disability. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Australian Government agencies are required to ensure information and services are provided in a non- discriminatory accessible manner.
• The Australian Government provides information at Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Version 2.0. These Guidelines cover  ‘a wide range of recommendations for making Web content more accessible. Following these guidelines will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity and combinations of these. Following these guidelines will also often make your Web content more usable to users in general.’
• Consider providing a function which allows searching for information via entering a career rather than a specific course or study area. For someone who has little or no idea about higher education such as a first in family person, they may not know what course they need to do but may know that they are interested in a particular career. The University of South Australia adopts this approach very effectively, so a search for information can be done using career, course or study area (Figure 13). Figure 14 shows the result if ‘teacher’ is entered in the career search. No filters have been applied in this example but could be applied to narrow the options.

Figure 13: Find a Career or Degree – University of South Australia

Source: https://study.unisa.edu.au/

Figure 14: Find a Teaching Career – University of South Australia

Source: https://study.unisa.edu.au/

• Consider providing tailored products and support for prospective students such as Indigenous people, people with disability, people from a disadvantaged financial background, or people who would be the first in their family to undertake higher education. Ensure that this information is easy to find and access. Figure 7 (Charles Sturt University) provided some useful examples.
  
  
  
  Using the case of first in family, it is important to think about how to help someone who may have no knowledge of higher education, and how they could best be helped to access and, importantly, understand admissions information. Providing information on a website alone may not suffice. In addition to making the information as simple as possible on websites and in brochures, provide opportunities to make an appointment to meet a staff member who literally takes them through the process step by step in a supportive environment, ideally in person, but alternatively via phone or teleconference. If face-to-face, this might be in small groups, but in some cases an individual approach may work better. Involving a student ambassador with a similar background may also be helpful either with a staff member, or alone if appropriately trained and employed on a casual basis. Many providers have a chat line prompt throughout their websites and/or offer the opportunity to visit the provider and discuss matters (ACU is an example shown in Figures 8 and 9).
  
  
  
  Similarly, for applicants with disability, a personal approach may be required to assist them to understand how they can be supported, what mechanisms exist to help them with their application (if needed), what services exist to support them if they go ahead with their application and are successful, and what, if any, limitations may exist in their studies as a result of their disability.
  
  
  
  The University of Adelaide lists its entry pathways (Figure 15) with one click from the home page which includes two avenues of support. These are the four academic backgrounds described in Good Practice Example 1 plus two preparatory /access programs. The ‘University Preparatory Program’ is designed for people who have never been to university or have not studied for a long time. The University also has  a preparatory program and an access scheme for people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. If admitted, the University has a number of support mechanisms for the students.

Figure 15: Entry Pathways – The University of Adelaide

Source: https://adelaide.edu.au/study/undergraduate/entry-pathways/

Good practice example 7: Consult users about their experience when designing or updating a website

Academic and administrative staff who know their institution well have an in- depth knowledge of the policies and procedures in their institution and a shared understanding of higher education language and its extensive use of acronyms. When developing and updating websites and other information, they may unwittingly use language which is unfamiliar to those who are not yet immersed in the environment such as prospective students. There is also the risk that the information will favour students from families with English as a first language and those who have knowledge and experience of higher education.

To address such issues, consider establishing a reference group of students with different backgrounds to assist and provide feedback on this work. Such reference groups might include students who are relatively new to the institution and may still be unfamiliar with what the institution offers compared with later year students. That said, later year students will still bring useful eyes to inform the materials being prepared. Diversity amongst such groups is important. A number of providers have student ambassador programs (mentioned in Good practice example 3 in relation to Bond University), and part of their responsibilities could be to help with the design or updating of websites.

Such service to the institution could be recognised in some formal way as a contribution to the course in which they are enrolled or some other mechanism.

Also, consider asking secondary school students to read the website or brochure and identify any terms they do not understand.

Consistency and comparability

Admissions information is considered transparent if it is consistent and comparable wherever the provider offers information about their courses (including the website, brochures, handbooks, and TACs). Admissions information can be very confusing for prospective students, teachers and parents, and that confusion is compounded if the information differs across the website, brochures, handbooks, and information provided by the TACs. This can occur both within and across providers. Prospective students should be able to find admissions information that uses the same terms and covers the same types of information across all providers, as described in the updated specification.

Consistency and comparability are not the same as uniformity; a core information set does not mean that providers cannot present additional information, relevant to their context. Similarly, consistency in the approach to providing admissions information across providers is not the same thing as uniformity of admissions criteria. Adhering to this Good Practice Note does not compromise the autonomy of providers in relation to their admissions criteria.

Good practice example 8: Use consistent information across various platforms

Some approaches to adopt are:

• Present information consistently across the website, brochures, handbooks and any other materials, and importantly, make sure the information is consistent with the information in the relevant TAC.
• Ensure language is consistent between the various platforms used by the institution, and ideally, the look and feel will be similar.
• Consider publishing the public glossary that is included in Appendix B in the updated specification (attached to this Note as Attachment 4) and add any technical or other terms that might be institution or course-specific.

Some providers have developed their own glossary. For example, in a short glossary, the University of Queensland explains the changes being implemented, and they direct people to the TEQSA website for further information (Figure 16). This glossary lists previous terms and definitions, and provides the new terms to be used. This would be useful for prospective students if they come across both expressions, and for parents, teachers and career advisors who know the previous terms. But it won’t take much time to be irrelevant for school-leaver prospective students. At ACU, the focus of its glossary is on being sympathetic about the confusing terminology used in universities and has a much broader reach than admissions information but includes the relevant terms (Figure 17).

Figure 16: A Glossary of Admission Terms at the University of Queensland

Source: https://future-students.uq.edu.au/apply/undergraduate/admission-terms-d…

 

Figure 17: ‘Uni Terminology Explained’ – Australian Catholic University

Source: https://www.acu.edu.au/study-at-acu/find-a-course/uni-terminology-expla…

Good practice example 9: Use clear and simple language and remove the terms to be avoided

Consistent language should be used so that prospective students can readily compare courses and institutions. Providers should use the common terminology and data definitions defined in Appendix A and the public glossary at Appendix B of the updated specification. These definitions are also consistent with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).

When updating admissions information, ensure all ‘terms to be avoided’ described in the updated specification (Appendix A, page 9) have been removed. These changes may prove a little challenging for those who have worked in higher education for some time to remember the correct phrases to use, but it is important for admissions transparency to ensure students can make informed study choices. Staff preparing websites, brochures, handbooks and other documented materials, and staff who deal with prospective students in person must be briefed and trained on the admissions transparency work, especially the terminology that should, and should not, be used.

Find and replace the following terms:

• ‘Forced offers’ - to be removed and included as part of adjustments or non-ATAR criteria, depending on whether ATAR was a factor in the selection process.
• ‘Bonus points’ - to be replaced by adjustment factors, that is, points which are added to an ATAR to derive a ‘selection rank’ for a particular course. The glossaries in both examples shown in Figure 16 (University of Queensland) and Figure 17 (ACU) define this expression.
• ‘ATAR cut-off’ and ‘Clearly-in ATAR’ – to be replaced by Lowest ATAR to which an offer was made or Lowest selection rank to which an offer was made, depending on the context.

Providers should let prospective students know what the lowest ATAR of the student to which an offer was made was, for each of its courses using the most recent data available. That is, these data should be updated regularly; at least once or twice a year depending on the number of intakes the provider has each year. Some institutions provide these data on a course by course basis. The University of Wollongong provides an ATAR profile on its course pages, accessed by expanding the Admission profile tab. The ATAR profile for the Bachelor of Arts is shown in Figure 18. The table shows the highest, median, and lowest ATAR and Selection Rank for students offered a place wholly or partly on the basis of their ATAR. To assist students in interpreting this data, definitions of the ATAR and Selection Rank are available by clicking the blue question marks. There is also a link to the ATAR-based Admission page, which provides more in-depth information on the difference between these two measures, as well as commonly available adjustments.

Figure 18: ATAR Profile for the Bachelor of Arts at the University of Wollongong

Source: https://coursefinder.uow.edu.au/information/index.html?course=bachelor-…

• ‘Recognition of prior learning’ (RPL), ‘advanced standing’ and ‘credit transfer’ are the terms that should be used to explain the credit available for previous learning. ‘Credit for Prior Learning’ is not in the glossary (Attachment 4) so if a prospective student wanted an explanation they would not find it, which might be frustrating.
  
  
  
  Macquarie University has a detailed profile of what might be considered as RPL on its website, which a prospective student would find very encouraging and inclusive.​​ Macquarie sets out two types of learning — formal learning, and informal and non-formal learning — via drop-down fields. Figure 19 shows Macquarie’s RPL description and the informal and non-formal learning types of learning drop-down field.

Figure 19: Recognition of Prior Learning – Macquarie University

Source: https://www.mq.edu.au/study/admissions/recognition-of-prior-learning

Having a definition of credit is also important. Although one of the preferred terms is not used, Monash University clearly sets out what credit for prior learning means and describes the three recommended expressions (credit transfer, articulation and RPL). Monash provides a very useful tool to search the outcomes of previous credit applications, which would give a prospective student a good idea of the sorts of things taken into account (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Explanation of Credit for Prior Learning – Monash University

Source: https://www.monash.edu/admissions/credit

• Avoid using acronyms and jargon. As per Good practice example 7, consider testing readability and understanding of terminology by asking current students or secondary school students to read the website or publications, identify terms they do not understand and provide their thoughts on how best to present information.
• If adopting the new common terms or information sets is challenging, contact the TEQSA Admissions Transparency Team for advice:
  • Email: admissions@teqsa.gov.au
  • Telephone: 03 8306 2547
  • Web: teqsa.gov.au/admissions-transparency

Good practice example 10: Provide training for staff involved with the preparation of written materials or communicating directly with prospective students

Staff involved with preparing websites, brochures and other written materials must understand the common terminology to be used as set out in the updated specification, and the terms to be avoided. Similarly, staff involved in talking directly to or emailing prospective students must also use the correct terminology so that they are consistent with any of the written materials a prospective student may have read.

Training for such staff, either face-to-face or online, about the terminology and the admission criteria of their institution is recommended. They can then speak with confidence to prospective students, whether in response to a telephone call, a discussion across the desk in a student contact centre, or more intensive discussions with students who may not be familiar with higher education, have English as a second language, or disability.

Good practice example 11: Provide data in the student and ATAR profiles in the format set out in the Phase Two common terminology and information sets

The student and ATAR profile templates in Appendices C and D of the updated specification provide important information for prospective students. The student  profile should use data from the most recent student admissions at the institution to show applicant background, numbers and percentages of students in each category. Appendix C is the data for the institution as a whole and Appendix D is the data for each course. Appendix D also has an ATAR  profile template to show students how ATARs were or were not used for a course in the most recent admission period. The information in these profiles is useful because it gives students some idea of the likely peer cohort of new students in the institution and courses in which they are interested, and what ATARs were used. Providers should avoid changing the order of the academic background data in the student and ATAR profiles so that the data can be easily compared between providers.

Figure 21 shows the data for Charles Darwin University set out in the recommended way, including the three subsets of data for students with recent secondary education (solely based on ATAR, ATAR plus any adjustment factors, and ATAR not used). Think Education (Figure 22) is another example of setting out the data correctly.

Figure 21: Student Profile for Charles Darwin University

Source:  https://www.cdu.edu.au/study/essentials/student-profile

 

Figure 22: Student Profile for Think Education

Source: http://www.think.edu.au/studying-at-think/general-admission-information…

Data presentation and quality

Implementation of admissions transparency includes the presentation of a whole- of-institution student profile and course-specific student and ATAR profile tables. Prospective students rely on these data to guide them in their decision-making, so accuracy and maintaining the currency of the data is important.

The University of Queensland has adopted a useful process to help them correct any mistakes or present a piece of information more clearly to its audience. ‘See something that needs editing? Let us know’ appears on several webpages, and when pressed, expands to that shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23: University of Queensland – See Something That Needs Editing?

Source: https://future-students.uq.edu.au/apply/undergraduate/get-planning

Good practice example 12: Student and ATAR profiles use the most recent data available

The purpose of the institution and course profile tables is to give an indication of what the likely student cohort would be if a prospective student enrolled in the institution and undertook a course. Things to take account of include:

• Ensure a reference period is specified at the top of the student and ATAR profile tables, as per the templates in Appendices C and D in the updated specification.
• Follow the instructions for masking data to maintain privacy and prevent derivation as provided in the updated specification. Numbers less than five should be masked to maintain privacy. It may be necessary to mask additional cells to prevent numbers less than five being derived. Avoid suppressing the total.
• Check that the sub-totals presented in the student profiles add up to the total and the proportions add up to 100 per cent.

Figures 21 and 22 showed data for Charles Darwin University and Think Education for their institutions as a whole. They show the application period used, the number of students enrolled from each academic background category add up to the total, and the percentages in each category are correct. Figure 24 shows the student profile and ATAR profile data at a course level using the Bachelor of Science offered at the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University as an example. The student profile table illustrates that there were less than 5 international students. Therefore, data for one of the recent secondary education backgrounds shows ‘Not Published’ to avoid derivation of the number in the hidden category. The reference period (Full Year 2018) is shown at the top of the tables.

Eastern College displays a student profile for the whole institution (Figure 25), and it has four categories of students with less than five, and whilst the gap between known enrolments and the total is small, it cannot be worked out how many were in each because the four categories have less than five.

Figure 24: Student and ATAR Profile for Bachelor of Science at La Trobe University

Source: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0006/924423/bachelor-of-science-melbourne.pdf

 

Figure 25: Student Profile for Eastern College

Source: https://eastern.edu.au/admissions/information

Good practice example 13: Provide information on how an ATAR is calculated and how the selection rank is derived

The UAC provides a definition of ATAR shown in Figure 26. Providing a definition of ATAR or a link to a TAC’s website is recommended to ensure students understand the meaning, and that it is a rank, and not a score. The University of Sydney provides a definition of ATAR (Figure 27), as does Macquarie University, which also defines selection rank (Figure 28). These are helpful starts to understanding their meaning and the difference between an ATAR and a selection rank.

Figure 26: Definition of ATAR by UAC

Source: https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar

 

Figure 27: Definition of ATAR – University of Sydney

Source: https://sydney.edu.au/study/study-options/undergraduate-courses/atar-ex…

 

Figure 28: Definition of Selection Rank - Macquarie University

Source: https://courses.mq.edu.au/2019/domestic/undergraduate/bachelor-of-scien…

The specific calculation of ATAR is different in each state and territory but the result is designed to be nationally equivalent. The Overall Position (OP) refers to a Queensland student’s position in a statewide tertiary entrance rank order based on their overall achievement in senior secondary subjects. Queensland will adopt the ATAR in place of the OP for students who commence Year 11 in 2019 and beyond.

Section 4 of the course information section in Appendix D of the updated specification sets out the information that is required; what an ATAR is, a selection rank, and the meaning of highest, lowest and median ATAR (with no adjustments), and highest, lowest and median selection rank. A selection rank includes the impact of any equity, subject or other adjustment factors made to an ATAR. A table template shows the ATAR profile for a provider’s course for the most recent intake period for which data are available. For each course, providers are required to present the ATAR column but providing the selection rank column is optional. The ATAR and student profiles for the Bachelor of Science at La Trobe University in Figure 24 illustrates the data required on ATARs and selection ranks for Science.

Things to consider including:

• Providing a ‘Minimum ATAR/Selection Rank required for consideration’ or a ‘Guaranteed Entry ATAR/Selection Rank’ is only necessary if an institution or the course has adopted this approach. However, if applicants are assessed based on minimum or guaranteed ranks, then these must be published. If a Guaranteed Entry ATAR/Selection Rank changes before the application closing date, it should be updated promptly.
• Ensure that the ATAR data for recent secondary education (within the past two years) are disaggregated into the recommended three sub-categories (admission is solely on the basis of ATAR, on the basis of ATAR plus additional factors, and ATAR was not a factor). These are shown in the student profiles in Figures 22, 24 and 25 (Think Education, La Trobe University and Eastern College respectively). Ensure that any recent secondary student selected solely based on special consideration is included in the ‘ATAR was not a factor’ category of the student profile.
• If a student profile, created using the template from Appendix D of the updated specification, includes students in the solely ATAR or ATAR plus additional criteria box, an ATAR profile should also be created, using the template from Appendix D of the updated specification and displayed on the provider’s website.
• Staff with responsibility for extracting these data for presentation in the institution and course tables are encouraged to record the step-by-step process of how they did it, so that the data is extracted in the same way in successive years and is therefore comparable.
• As recommended earlier, ensure that staff, who provide enrolment advice to prospective students, are trained to understand the new terminology, the terminology that is not to be used, how an ATAR is calculated, the difference between an ATAR and a selection rank, and how the selection rank is derived. This should also be explained on the website and in publications. If the provider or the TAC adjusts the ranking of applicants in ways that are different from other providers or TACs, they should explain this.

Good practice example 14: The course ATAR profile matches the course admissions information

Ensure that the course ATAR profile matches the course admission information. For example, if the course requires all applicants to attend an interview, ensure that the course ATAR profile shows the number of students selected based solely on ATAR is zero and ensure the course information is correct.

To demonstrate this, the Bachelor of Fine Arts (Visual Art) at the University of Melbourne has an interview and the presentation of a folio of work as part of its admission requirements (Figure 29). The University advises that applicants who meet the interview and portfolio requirements will be ranked on this basis, provided they meet the University’s subject pre-requisites and English language requirements. The student profile for this course for the 2018 admissions period shows N/A (not applicable) for the number of students admitted on the basis of ATAR alone or ATAR with adjustment factors (Figure 30) as these are not the basis for selection into this course.

Figure 29: Admission Criteria of an Interview and Portfolio for the Bachelor of Fine Arts (Visual Art) – The University of Melbourne

Source: https://study.unimelb.edu.au/find/courses/undergraduate/bachelor-of-fin…

 

Figure 30: 2018 Student Profile for the Bachelor of Visual Arts – The University of Melbourne

Source: https://study.unimelb.edu.au/find/courses/undergraduate/bachelor-of-fin…

How applicants are assessed

Admissions information should assist students to appraise their prospects for success in applying for admission to a course. If the criteria on which assessment is based for prospective students from different academic backgrounds are not provided, this may deter a person from applying.

Good practice example 15: Provide the criteria which assessment is based on, particularly if assessment is not based on ATAR alone

Give the prospective student an understanding of how their application will be assessed. This is particularly important for applicants who fit more than one academic background group and for those who are not being assessed on ATAR alone. Consider explaining:

• The criteria upon which assessment is based, and why these criteria have been chosen.
• What types of professional or community experience and informal learning would be considered relevant?
• What expectations or guidelines the provider has in relation to portfolio, audition or interview requirements, and the weighting of those in relation to an ATAR or selection rank.
• The weighting of study, work and life experience in an assessment and how these may add value to an application.
• How an applicant who has completed a bridging or enabling course, a Special Tertiary Admissions Test (STAT) or other pathway program, is assessed differently from other applicants, if that is the case.

LCI Melbourne is a good example of setting out clearly what its expectations are in relation to admission into a creative or visual arts course. Figure 31 shows how it describes its selection interview and portfolio presentation as informal and friendly which is encouraging for prospective students, and it describes the sorts of things that might be included in a portfolio.

Figure 31: Selection Interview and Portfolio Requirements – LCI Melbourne

Source: https://www.lcimelbourne.edu.au/applications/creative-entry/portfolio-i…

If this information is also available on a TAC website, ensure the information available from the provider is consistent.

Providers’ policies and procedures about Recognition of Prior Learning, Advanced Standing and Credit Transfer should be consistent with the admissions transparency recommendations discussed in this Good Practice Note and be readily available on a provider’s website, including any fees payable. Ensure that this information is clearly accessible to prospective students and is not limited to web pages for current students.

TAFE Queensland provides information about credit transfer as shown in Figure 32, and also provides a link to its policies and procedures, within which the policy around credit transfer can be found (Figure 33).

 

Figure 32: Information About Credit Transfer – TAFE Queensland

Source https://tafeqld.edu.au/courses/ways-you-can-study/recognition-of-prior-…

 

Figure 33: Policy on Credit Transfer – TAFE Queensland

Source: https://tafeqld.edu.au/about-us/policy-and-governance/policies-and-proc… credit-transfer-articulations-and-recognition-of-prior-learning.html

Consider including a list of application information (for example, birth certificate, other education results) and links to the forms that need to be provided so that prospective students can easily understand the documents they are required to submit with their application.

Three examples from providers of the information they specify about the documents required with an application for a course are:

• Eynesbury College provides a checklist for course applicants (Figure 34) which includes the links to apply, the documents required with the application, and the need for the documents to be certified.
• Melbourne Institute of Technology provides similar information and includes required documentation and hotlinks relating to applications for credit transfer from previous studies towards a course at the Institute (Figure 35).
• Sydney Institute of Business and Technology (SIBT) provides similar information and explains how to certify documents which is helpful for prospective students (Figure 36).

Figure 34: Documents and Online Links Required with an Application for a Course – Eynesbury College

Source: https://www.eynesbury.navitas.com/apply

 

Figure 35: Documents and Online Links Required for Application to a Course – Melbourne Institute of Technology

Source: http://www.mit.edu.au/study-with-us/The_whole_of_institution_informatio…

 

Figure 36: Documents and Online Links Required for Application for a Course - Sydney Institute of Business and Technology (SIBT)

Source: https://www.sibt.nsw.edu.au/application-process

Consider indicating to prospective students that they may find information from more than one background group is useful or relevant to them.

Good practice example 16: Provide information on the relevant types of professional or community experience and informal learning

Where relevant to an institution or course, provide information about the types of professional or community experience and informal learning and give examples so that prospective students can readily understand whether and how their experience may or may not be used in assessment of their application.

Macquarie University’s description of RPL shown in Figure 19 sets out in detail examples of evidence that Macquarie would consider as types of informal learning.

Good practice example 17: Provide detail on any expectations or guidelines for criteria that apply in addition to the ATAR, such as an audition or portfolio

Where relevant to an institution or course, provide information about how criteria (other than the ATAR), such as an audition or portfolio, are considered. Give examples, so that prospective students can readily understand how auditions will be managed, and what they are expected to perform; or what they should include in their portfolio and how it is to be presented. Swinburne University has portfolio guidelines (Figure 37) to assist students in its School of Design to seek exemptions or credit for prior learning.

Figure 37: Undergraduate Application Portfolio Guidelines - Swinburne University

Source: https://www.swinburne.edu.au/media/swinburneeduau/study-at-swinburne/do…

Good practice example 18: Provide all details of eligibility for adjustment factors and the maximum total adjustments

Students who are eligible for adjustment factors will be able to determine what their selection rank might be if all the details of eligibility for adjustment factors and the maximum total adjustments possible are published. Consider co-locating information about the different adjustment factors available, and the programs that set aside places for particular groups (for example, Indigenous students or people with elite sporting ability). If information about an adjustment factor program is available on the TAC website, then provide a link to that page.

The University of Newcastle indicates (Figure 38) that the maximum adjustment points to be added to an ATAR is 12 points for high school students. Newcastle also shows access schemes they have in place and, where relevant, the maximum number of adjustment points that would apply to each are described. Each entry has links to take the reader to more information, including UAC in the case of Educational Access Schemes.

Figure 39 shows similar information provided by Bond University. Drop-down items have been selected in the screenshot to show the information about maximum adjustment possible, and adjustment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Figure 38: Selection Ranks, Entry Schemes and Adjustment Factors for High School Students – University of Newcastle

Source: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/study/undergraduate/selection-ranks-and-en…

Source: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/study/undergraduate/getting-in/entry-schem…

 

Figure 39: Adjustment Factors for Admissions at Bond University

Source: https://bond.edu.au/future-students/study-bond/how-apply/undergraduate-…;

Good practice example 19: Provide comprehensive information about how prior study is assessed

Present comprehensive information about how prior study is assessed. Figure 40 shows the information provided by the University of Tasmania. Consideration could be given to including a list of courses that are already recognised for Credit Transfer or advanced standing.

Figure 40: Recognition for Prior Learning – University of Tasmania

Source: http://www.utas.edu.au/admissions/undergraduate/credit-advanced-standing

Good practice example 20: Provide a list of admission pathways for those who may not meet the assessment criteria

If the four academic background groups do not adequately reflect the basis on which students will be assessed, it would be useful to explain to prospective students how they relate to the way in which students will be assessed. For example:

• Applicants with ATARs more than three years old may want to know if they are competing for a place alongside applicants with recent secondary education, or whether they will gain entry based on their work experience (work and life experience).
• If terms such as ‘school leavers’, ‘non-school leavers’, ‘adult entry’ and ‘mature age’ are used, explain how they relate to the four background groups.
• Consider supporting prospective students who may not meet the assessment criteria of the four background groups by providing a list of admission pathways such as bridging courses. That is, any option (and links to further information) that will enable prospective students to meet the entry requirements of their chosen course.

One example of a pathway program is the Open Foundation offered at the University of Newcastle that is for students who do not have the qualifications required for direct entry (Figure 41). Figure 15 showed entry pathways offered by the University of Adelaide, in particular the University Preparatory Program for those who have never been to University or have not studied for a long time, and a preparatory program and an access scheme for people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Figure 41: A Pathway Program Offered at the University of Newcastle

Attachment 1:    Admissions transparency and the Higher Education Standards Framework

The relevant Standards relating to admissions transparency in the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 are (summarised):

Domain 7 (Representation, Information and Information Management)

7.2.1 Information for students is available and accessible, accurate, relevant and timely.

7.2.2 Plain English information is available prior to acceptance of an offer.

7.3.1 A repository of publicly-available current information about the higher education provider’s operations that includes indicative total student enrolments and a list of all higher education courses of study that are offered, including indicative estimated annual enrolments.

These Standards in Domain 7 explicitly relate to the provision of information for prospective (and current) students being clear and transparent. If providers fully implement the HESP’s recommendations about admissions transparency, they will meet the requirements of these Standards.

The focus of this Good Practice Note is in relation to these Standards in Domain 7, but there are Standards in other domains, which prescribe particular requirements and define standard terminologies that must be used by higher education providers. Whilst these are content-specific and not about the transparency and communication of information per se, they have implications for admissions information and its availability of which providers should be mindful. For example, when writing or updating policies and procedures that relate to student admission requirements and which, at some point, will be accessed by prospective (and current) students, then the language and terminology used in their preparation should be considered. Meeting admissions transparency requirements is not an assurance that the Standards in these other domains (other than the ones in Domain 7 listed above) will be met. These other Standards (summarised) include:

Domain 1 (Student Participation and Attainment)

1.1.1 Admissions policies, requirements and procedures are documented.

1.1.2 Students are informed of their rights and obligations.

1.1.3 Conditions of study and contractual arrangements relating to admissions.

1.2.1 Assessment of prior learning.

Domain 2 (Learning Environment)

2.2.2 Recruitment and admission of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

2.3.1 Students are advised about support services available.

2.3.2 Procedures and support services available to students with adverse personal circumstances.

2.3.5 Critical-incident policy together with readily accessible procedures.

2.3.4 A safe environment is promoted and fostered.

2.4.1 Mechanisms for reporting grievances.

Domain 5 (Institutional Quality Assurance)

5.3.7 Course evaluation and improvement informing admission criteria.

Domain 7 (Representation, Information and Information Management)

7.1.1 - 7.1.5 Responsible (i.e. neither false nor misleading) representation of study offerings.

Attachment 2: Timeline of work undertaken to address admissions transparency

The following table provides an overview of the extensive work the Government, TEQSA, peak bodies, TACs and higher education providers undertook to develop and implement the recommendations on admissions transparency in higher education since 2016.

Jan 2016	The Sydney Morning Herald published an article about NSW universities admitting students with ATARs as low as 30, which prompted the (then) Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, to seek advice from the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) [February 2016] on options for improving the transparency of student admissions. The HESP consulted from April 2016 and received 82 submissions.
Oct 2016	Following extensive consultation, The HESP released the report Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions.
Dec 2016	The Government reported it accepted the HESP’s 14 recommendations.
Mar 2017	The sector-led Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (IWG) was established, with support from the Department of Education and Training, to develop a practical response to the HESP’s recommendations.
April 2017	The IWG circulated a draft Implementation Plan for consultation and received 54 submissions.
July 2017	The IWG published the Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan). In Phase One, providers were required to make best endeavours to implement the requirements by August 2017.
Aug 2017	TEQSA commenced a formative evaluation of provider progress towards implementation of Admissions Transparency and reported its findings to the IWG in November 2017.
Dec 2017	The IWG published Admissions Transparency Phase Two Common Terminology and Information sets; an update of the specifications for common admissions terminology and the information sets, due for sector wide implementation by May 2018 to support domestic undergraduate applications to study in 2019 and beyond.
Feb 2018	TEQSA released its Advice on Admissions Transparency, based on the findings of its formative evaluation (with feedback from IWG, providers, TACs, students and peak bodies).
April 2018	TEQSA held five capital city forums for 250 higher education administrators responsible for the implementation of admissions transparency. The questions and answers from the forums were circulated to all providers.
July 2018	The IWG published a minor update of the specifications; Admissions Transparency Phase Two Common Terminology and Information sets, which now defines median and highest ATAR to which an offer was made, and updates guidance under ‘Essential requirements for admission’. The IWG also provided information set mock ups [whole of institution and program/course] on their website.

 

Attachment 3: Checklist of minimum requirements for provider implementation of admissions transparency

Question	Evidence
Is admissions information accessible?	Information about admissions is easy to find A link from the homepage is obvious Continuous scrolling or clicking on numerous pages is not required ‘Admissions transparency’, ‘TEQSA information’ are not used as headings Registration / contact details are not required to access information
Is admissions information consistent?	Information in one place does not conflict with the same information in another place The provider’s website links to their TAC page The information on the provider’s website is consistent with the information provided on the TAC, the Course Seeker website, handbooks, etc The common terms are used and terms to be avoided have been removed
Is admissions information comparable?	Information is in the format required by the Implementation Plan so that prospective students can easily compare it with other courses The provider has a student profile for the institution The provider has a student profile for each course alongside the course information The provider has an ATAR profile for each course alongside the course information, which includes ATARs (selection ranks are optional) All profile categories are included For each course, the provider has presented information for each of the four background groups
Is admissions data presented well (without error)?	The data in the student profile and the ATAR profile for both whole of institution and each course is presented correctly A reference period for each profile is provided The data add up (numbers and proportions) The data is masked correctly
Can prospective students easily understand how they will be assessed?	All of the information that leads to an application outcome is available on the provider’s website The criteria upon which assessment is based is provided Adjustment factors, including the maximum available, are explained Recognition of Prior Learning / Credit Transfer is explained

Attachment 4: Appendix B from Admissions Transparency Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets

Appendix B: Public glossary for information users

This appendix sets out a select and slightly simplified glossary of common admission- related terms that can be made available to information set users who may wish to seek clarity on the meaning of terms used in the institution’s admissions information. Whilst not a requirement, it is suggested that a link to a copy of this glossary be available from the institution’s main access point for admission-related information.

Glossary of common admission-related terms and their meaning

The following common admission-related terms and definitions have been committed to by Australian higher education providers, tertiary admission centres and other related bodies, to ensure consistency in the presentation of admission requirements across courses and institutions.

Admission pathway

Any one of the options available to a prospective higher education student that will enable them to meet the entry requirements of their chosen courses.

Applicant background

The following grouping of applicants is used to help prospective students, family and others easily find the admission information most relevant to their circumstances. The groupings do not themselves determine how an application will be assessed but direct an information seeker to the most useful information.

• Higher education study
  
  Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a higher education course, whether at a university or non-university provider.
• Vocational education and training (VET) study
  
  Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a VET course.
• Work and life experience (includes less recent secondary results)
  
  Applicants who left secondary education more than two years previously and have not undertaken VET or higher education study since then.
• Recent secondary education
  
  Applicants whose admission is based mostly on secondary education undertaken  at school, TAFE or other VET or higher education provider (Australian or overseas equivalent) that was completed (or will be) in the current year or within the previous two years.

ATAR

The Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) is a ranking from 30 (lowest) to 99.95 (highest) agreed by COAG as a nationally equivalent measure of a person’s relative academic ranking within their complete age cohort in the year they graduated from senior secondary school (including those who did not complete Year 12 or completed but were not eligible for an ATAR). The ATAR is derived from the scaled scores achieved for senior secondary school subjects. The specific calculation used is different in each state and territory but the result is designed to be nationally equivalent.

ATAR-related thresholds

These only apply to offers of places that are made wholly or partly on the basis of an applicant’s ATAR. Not all institutions use ATAR to determine eligibility. Different institutions may use only some of the following types of eligibility thresholds:

• Lowest ATAR to which an offer was made
  
  The lowest ‘raw’ or unadjusted ATAR of an applicant to whom an offer of a place was made in the relevant year or year-to-date.
• Lowest Selection Rank to which an offer was made
  
  The lowest Selection Rank of an applicant to whom an offer of a place was made in the relevant year or year-to-date (including the consideration of any adjustments the applicant may have been eligible for).
• Median ATAR [or Selection Rank] to which an offer was made
  
  The middle ATAR [or selection rank] of all applicants to whom an offer of a place was made in the relevant year or year-to-date.
• Highest ATAR [or Selection Rank] to which an offer was made
  
  The highest ATAR [or selection rank] of an applicant to whom an offer of a place was made in the relevant year or year-to-date.
• Minimum ATAR [or Selection Rank] required for consideration to enter in next intake
  
  For use where a threshold minimum ATAR or Selection Rank must be achieved to be considered for admission to a course or institution.
• Guaranteed Entry ATAR [or Selection Rank]
  
  Where achievement of a specified ATAR or Selection Rank (as appropriate) will guarantee acceptance into a course or institution, subject to any non-ATAR criteria being met, such as prerequisite study or English language proficiency.

Adjustment factors

Often referred to previously as ‘bonus points’, these are additional points that may be used in combination with an applicant’s ATAR to derive a person’s course Selection Rank. Adjustments do not change applicants’ ATARs, but change their Selection Rank for a particular course or courses. Common types of adjustment factors are:

• Elite Athlete and Performer adjustments
  
  Adjustments available on the basis of the applicant’s sporting or artistic prowess.
• Equity adjustment
  
  Adjustment available on the basis of characteristics associated with disadvantage.
• Location adjustment
  
  Adjustment available on the basis of the applicant’s proximity to the institution offering the course.
• Subject adjustment
  
  Adjustment available on the basis of the particular relevance of a secondary subject to the academic requirements of the higher education course.
• Maximum adjustment
  
  The maximum total adjustments possible to an applicant’s Selection Rank from the combination of all adjustments they are eligible for.

Advanced standing

A form of credit for any previous learning (Australian Qualifications Framework definition) – see also the definitions for ‘credit transfer’ and ‘recognition of prior learning’.

Bridging course

A course designed to cover subject knowledge, which assists students to gain knowledge in specialist areas that are a core component of the course. If a course requires a prerequisite in an area that students have not studied or worked with before, a bridging course will help students to bridge the gap in that knowledge and gain admission.

Credit transfer

A process that provides students with agreed and consistent credit outcomes for components of a qualification based on identified equivalence in content and learning outcomes between matched qualifications (Australian Qualifications Framework definition).

Direct application to provider

Application made directly to a higher education provider rather than through a tertiary admission centre.

Early offer

Where an offer of enrolment is made to a recent secondary school student prior to release of ATARs or equivalent (e.g. OP in Queensland, IB). Such offers are generally conditional on other requirements being met, such as successful completion of a Senior Secondary Certificate of Education or achievement of a specified minimum ATAR.

Enabling Course

A course designed to provide students with skills needed for success in further study, to assist in the transition to tertiary education – for example study techniques or English language skills. Successful completion helps prepare a person to be admitted to a course that leads to a higher education award.

Experience based entry schemes

A selection method used by higher education providers to assess and select students who may not have educational qualifications sufficient for an offer of admission to a course but who have other relevant work and life skills and experience that make them a suitable candidate.

International Baccalaureate (IB)

Formerly known as the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) is an international educational foundation founded in 1968 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The IB Diploma program is a senior secondary education curriculum and assessment framework offered by some schools as an alternative to the Australian National Curriculum and overseen by state and territory curriculum and assessment authorities. Australian tertiary admission centres convert IB scores to a notional ATAR or QTAC Selection Rank, enabling IB students to be ranked for tertiary entrance alongside their peers.

Offer round/s

Refers to the series of dates on which offers of higher education places are issued to applicants throughout the year, whether through a tertiary admission centre or directly by a higher education provider.

Overall Position

The Overall Position (OP) refers to a Queensland student’s position in a state-wide tertiary entrance rank order based on their overall achievement in senior secondary subjects. It indicates how well a student has done compared to all other OP-eligible students in Queensland. Students are placed in one of 25 OP bands from OP1 (highest) to OP25 (lowest). Queensland students seeking admission to higher education in other states can have their OP converted to an ATAR. Interstate students looking to study in Queensland can have their ATAR converted to a Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre (QTAC) Selection Rank. Queensland will adopt the ATAR instead of the OP for students who commence Year 11 in 2019 and beyond.

Recognition of prior learning (RPL)

A process used to assess an individual’s relevant prior learning (including formal, informal and non-formal learning) to determine the credit that may be granted towards completion of a qualification.

School recommendation

A recommendation from a school or other secondary education provider on the abilities of a student. Previously referred to by some as a principal’s recommendation.

Selection Rank

The ranking that tertiary admission centres and most universities actually use to assess admission to a course. A person’s course Selection Rank can include their ATAR, any adjustments they are eligible for, such as equity or subject adjustments, other contributions calculated on the basis of work experience or previous non-secondary study, portfolio assessments, results of the Special Tertiary Admissions Test, other supplementary tests, etc.

TAC application

Application made through a tertiary admission centre, namely QTAC, UAC, VTAC,  SATAC, TISC and University of Tasmania, in relation to applications to study in that state.

References

AAP – see Australian Associated Press

Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group 2004, Admissions to Higher Education Review: Fair admissions to higher education: recommendations for good practice, AHESG, retrieved 7 June 2019.

AHESG – see Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group.

Australian Associated Press 2018, ‘Coalition ‘alarmed’ after students with Atars as low as 17.9 accepted into teaching’, The Guardian, 12 August, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Bagshaw, E & Ting, I 2016, ‘NSW universities admitting students with ATARs as low as 30’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 January, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Harvey, A & Brett, M 2016, Submissions to Higher Education Standards Panel Consultation on Higher Education Admissions Processes: Ideas for Improving Tertiary Admissions in Australian Higher Education, June, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Harvey, A, Brett, M, Cardak, B, Sheridan, A, Stratford, J, Tootell, N, McAllister, R,   & Spicer, R 2016, The Adaptation of Tertiary Admissions Processes to Growth and Diversity, Report for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training, Melbourne, Access and Achievement Research Unit, La Trobe University, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Hoover, E 2019, ‘At one final hearing, Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions squared off. Here’s what happened’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 February, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Medina, J, Benner, K, & Taylor, K 2019, ‘Actresses, Business Leaders and Other Wealthy Parents Charged in US College Entry Fraud’, The New York Times, 12 March, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Perez-Felkner, L 2018, ‘Harvard case could represent the end of race in college admissions’, The Conversation, 23 October, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Reeves, R 2019, ‘It’s not just corruption, Entrance into elite US colleges is rigged in every way’, The Guardian, 13 March, retrieved 7 June 2019.

Robinson, N 2018, ‘Students with the lowest ATAR scores being offered places in teaching degrees: secret report’, ABC News, 18 September, retrieved 7 June 2019.

 

Body

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 October 2018 until 31 December 2018. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

Each week, TEQSA makes regulatory decisions. These may be on the registration of new providers or the reregistration of existing providers. For the providers that do not have the power to accredit their own courses, TEQSA also makes decisions whether to accredit or re-accredit their courses. There are many legal, compliance and quality assurance measures which a higher education provider must demonstrate in order for TEQSA to allow a provider entry to Australia’s higher education sector.

In order to make these decisions, TEQSA must be satisfied that a provider complies with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) and the Higher Education Standards Framework, the standards framework underpinning the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA’s regulatory approach is standards and principles-based. It is guided by three regulatory principles: regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation, when exercising its powers. TEQSA’s regulatory decisions are taken by its Commission, or by senior members of TEQSA staff under delegation from the Commission.

More information about TEQSA’s approach is available at Our regulatory approach page.

Where do I find more information about TEQSA’s decisions?

Detailed public reports on individual decisions are available on the National Register of higher education providers. 

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Decision Date	Provider	Decision Description	Number of Conditions	Period Length
8-Oct-18	Acknowledge Education Pty Ltd (formerly Stott's Colleges Pty Ltd)	Accredit new course	-	7 years
11-Oct-18	Central Queensland University	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
11-Oct-18	Macleay College Pty Limited	Accredit new course	-	7 years
12-Oct-18	Australian Institute of Professional Counsellors Pty Ltd As Trustee For AIPC Trust	Accredit new course	-	7 years
12-Oct-18	Eastern College Australia Incorporated (formerly Tabor College (Victoria) Inc.)	Accredit new course	3	7 years
12-Oct-18	TAFE SA	Accredit new course (x2)	-	7 years
19-Oct-18	Performing Arts Education Pty Ltd	Register new provider	5	4 years
19-Oct-18	Performing Arts Education Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x3)	-	4 years
26-Oct-18	James Cook University	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
14-Nov-18	Centre for Pavement Engineering Education Incorporated	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
14-Nov-18	ParaPharm Pty Ltd	Cancel Registration	-	-
20-Nov-18	SAE Institute Pty Limited	Accredit new course	-	7 years
21-Nov-18	Australian Film, Television and Radio School	Extension of registration	-	3 years
21-Nov-18	Australian National University	Extension of registration	-	3 years
21-Nov-18	Flinders University (formerly The Flinders University of South Australia)	Extension of registration	-	3 years
21-Nov-18	International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd	Renew accreditation of existing course	1	3 years
21-Nov-18	International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd	Renew registration of existing provider	3	3 years
21-Nov-18	University of Technology Sydney	Extension of registration	-	3 years
21-Nov-18	Western Sydney University (formerly University of Western Sydney)	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
23-Nov-18	Eastern College Australia Incorporated (formerly Tabor College (Victoria) Inc.)	Renew accreditation of existing course (x3)	-	2 years
4-Dec-18	Montessori World Educational Institute (Australia) Inc	Renew accreditation of existing course	1	7 years
6-Dec-18	Box Hill Institute (formerly Box Hill Institute of TAFE)	Rejection of Self Accrediting Authority	-	-
12-Dec-18	The National Institute of Dramatic Art	Accredit new course	-	7 years
13-Dec-18	Australian College of the Arts Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
17-Dec-18	Eastern College Australia Incorporated (formerly Tabor College (Victoria) Inc.)	Renew accreditation of existing course (x5)	2	7 years
20-Dec-18	Australian Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Renew accreditation of existing course (x2)	-	4 years
20-Dec-18	Australian Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Renew accreditation of existing course (x3)	1	4 years
20-Dec-18	Australian Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Renew registration of existing provider	6	4 years
20-Dec-18	Raffles College Pty Ltd	Withdrawal of Registration	3	-
20-Dec-18	University of New South Wales	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years

Body

Overview

The Quality Assurance of Online Learning Forum (the Forum) was convened as an opportunity for higher education providers and TEQSA to examine the quality assurance landscape and emerging trends associated with online learning and its delivery in the Australian higher education sector.  It was also an opportunity to discuss the role of TEQSA in supporting the quality assurance and enhancement of online courses. 

The Forum was held the day before the annual TEQSA conference. Invitations were sent to all higher education providers and some international guests and more than 130 representatives attended this event. The Forum was recorded and a dedicated page will be created on the TEQSA website, with a link to the recording, the presentations and this report.

The Forum included an update from the TEQSA CEO, Anthony McClaran on the trends in online learning and the opportunities and challenges implicit in its quality assurance. Presentations from TEQSA Commissioner Dr Lin Martin, Professor Gregor Kennedy from The University of Melbourne, Dr Grant Klinkum from the New Zealand Qualifications  Authority, Professor Michael Sankey from Griffith University and Dr Margot O’Neill from the International College of Management, Sydney all explored features of online learning such as the recent increase in demand, the current frameworks and opportunities available for quality assurance and experiences with quality assuring micro-credentials. Together, the presentations provided a comprehensive picture of a mode of learning that is rapidly becoming mainstream and despite some perceptions of low quality and high attrition rates, enrolment and progression rates for online and blended offerings are improving. Student satisfaction is also increasing, particularly for blended learning. Mechanisms to quality assure these new modes of learning already exist and can be deployed with minimum modifications.

The presentations were followed by a student panel discussion moderated by Professor Beverly Oliver from Deakin University, focusing on the opportunities and challenges experienced by students studying online.

Following the lunch break, Professor Belinda Tynan from RMIT University facilitated small group discussions which examined some of the issues raised by presenters. 
TEQSA’s Commissioners and CEO closed the Forum, reflecting on the matters discussed and acknowledging the valuable contributions from all participants, as higher education providers and quality assurance agencies continue to enhance the quality assurance of online learning. 

Overall, 135 attendees participated in the Forum and over 85% of post-event survey respondents rated the Forum as Very Good or Excellent. 

Presentations

Dr Lin Martin, TEQSA Commissioner 
Online and Blended Learning enrolments in Australian higher education

Dr Martin provided statistics on the recent pattern of online enrolments at Australian higher education providers. Some of the statistics confirmed expectations, such as the growth of online and blended learning which represented 12.2% of all EFTSL enrolments in 2016 and the fact that most online enrolments are in bachelor degree courses. Nevertheless, recent statistics indicate that whilst online learning suffers from higher attrition rates than face to face, students undertaking blended learning have lower attrition rates than students studying in face to face only environments. Student satisfaction with online delivery has been rising for several years and is now at similar levels to satisfaction with face to face learning.

Professor Gregor Kennedy, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), The University of Melbourne
Setting the Scene: Global and Local

From both a domestic and international perspective, Professor Kennedy examined the challenges that providers face from the growth of online offerings, such as the uncertainty of what constitutes quality in the online space, the multiplicity of frameworks we might use to assure quality and whether the purpose of quality assurance is to accredit offerings or to enhance and improve them. Whilst existing frameworks could be adapted for online learning, features of online learning, such as micro-credentialing, the emergence of non-traditional providers and how to ensure student support and staff professional development demonstrate the complexity and the challenge of how to adequately assure quality offerings in this new, but increasingly mainstream space.

Dr Grant Klinkum, Deputy Chief Executive, New Zealand Qualifications Authority 
Micro-credentials: Accreditation and Quality Assurance

Dr Klinkum focused on micro-credentials and the experience of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in assuring the quality of this new breed of credentials. The disruptive trend of micro-credentials has been driven by technology and changing workplace requirements and now needs to be incorporated into the New Zealand Qualifications Framework. The challenge of this is that the online learnings associated with micro-credentials are offered by institutions outside the currently quality assured tertiary education organisations. Other implications include the emerging focus on the end user rather than the provider and whether the education system can be flexible enough to incorporate new offerings and new providers that don’t quite fit into existing frameworks.

Professor Michael Sankey, Deputy Director Learning Transformation, Griffith University
ACODE’s Work on Benchmarking and the eMM Model for Universities

Professor Sankey looked at the ways in which levels of consistency for learning outcomes between face to face and online can be achieved. Approaches and techniques to achieve this include benchmarking, Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) standards as well as frameworks that can assist in quality assuring online learning. At the institution level, ACODE benchmarks and the eLearning Maturity Model (eMM) can assist in achieving consistency and Professor Sankey demonstrated how the ACODE benchmarking activity has worked at Griffith University. Once internal self-assessment has taken place, a variety of opportunities exist using the ACODE framework to benchmark against other universities both in Australia and internationally. eMM is another framework that can be used for benchmarking, although assessments are kept confidential. A TEL framework has been developed and a group of seven universities will take part in a pilot in 2019.

Dr Margot McNeill, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), International College of Management Sydney

Dr McNeill examined the ways in which private providers quality assure online learning and presented the results of a survey of Australian private providers undertaken in September 2018. The survey results indicated that deficits in support for online learning institutionally are often the result of resource constraints. For example, whilst professional development is offered by the majority of private providers, fewer providers have mechanisms in place to support students and private providers were more likely to have quality assurance processes at the unit rather than course level. As indicated by other presenters, blended learning is becoming increasingly popular, with 70% of respondents requiring students to engage with both online as well as on campus. Whilst the majority of institutions agreed that they were broadly satisfied with student outcomes, only one respondent strongly agreed, suggesting that there is still room for improvement in satisfaction levels. Most respondents reported barriers to good practice including lack of resources, time and professional development for sessional staff, suggesting the need for a strategy to underpin planning and resourcing.  Examples of good practice in strategy and quality assurance were shared amongst respondents, which will assist those providers with fewer resources.

Alfred Deakin Professor Beverley Oliver, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education, Deakin University

Professor Oliver introduced the session with information on the characteristics of students who study online and their experiences with online learning, both positive and negative. Interesting statistics emerged on the profile of online students in Australia, including the fact that 67% identified as female, 13% were born outside Australia and 7% were more than 50 years of age. Professor Oliver provided comparative statistics on satisfaction levels for face to face learning compared to online. Online students who were surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with student and teacher interaction, difficulties developing written communication skills and a scarcity of student support, all challenges for this new mode of learning that will need to be overcome for this type of delivery to achieve equivalence in quality with face to face delivery. Professor Oliver went on to interview a panel of four students, all of whom had had very different experiences with online learning and held divergent attitudes to its usefulness and value as a learning channel.

Issues for students in online learning

The experiences of the students on the panel reflected the opportunities and challenges of online learning and also demonstrated the often anonymous and isolated nature of online learning for students. One of the students was grateful for the flexibility technology provides, without which he would not have been able to complete his studies. When work commitments prevented him from attending lectures and tutorials at one institution, he was able to undertake a course at a different institution that enabled him to study online. Conversely, another student stated that he did not receive value for money for his online course, where feedback was rare and there was a notable deficit in the student teacher relationship when it came to feedback and communication. Based on their experience, all students on the panel perceived online learning to be a cheap version of face to face learning and despite the flexibility it provides, institutions do not judge it to be important enough to devote the resources to it that they invest in face to face learning. One student noted that the barrier to online learning is created by academics and that the quality of online learning would improve, once that barrier, or attitude is removed. All students agreed that providers will need to embrace the technology that makes online learning possible and develop new techniques for online offerings such as training. The students welcomed the emergence of micro-credentials and the focus on enhancing skills and see this area as a great opportunity for growth and improvement. When asked where providers need to try harder, students suggested that the online environment should be designed to be as interactive as face to face learning and receive the same input into design as face to face learning. All students agreed that it is vital to incorporate the student voice into the design and delivery of online learning to improve the quality of the offerings.

Group discussion

In small discussion groups participants explored some of the issues identified in the previous sessions and examined the role of TEQSA, as well as the role of providers, in enhancing the quality assurance of online learning into the future. Three questions were posed to the groups:

• building on materials already developed, what support materials could be further developed?
• how do you as a provider quality assure and validate your online learning offerings?
• what role should TEQSA have in enhancing the Quality Assurance of online learning?

Professor Belinda Tynan and colleagues from RMIT University facilitated the discussion using GoSoapBox, a web based response device which captured instant feedback from the larger group to gain real time insight into the audience’s responses to questions and gave all participants an opportunity to reflect on the issues and provide their views. This informed and stimulated discussion.

Feedback from questions posed to discussion groups

Building on materials already developed, what support materials could be further developed?

There was a recognition from participants that support materials have already been developed that can be adapted for online delivery, but there is also a need for specific material to support online learning quality. Providers suggested that simplified templates, good practice examples and guidelines would be useful, as well as academic integrity guidelines for online delivery. Some providers suggested that there is a need to streamline and synthesize existing standards and suggested that TEQSA might be able to provide a central repository for such materials. Several providers pointed to the need for professional development models to improve the quality of teaching online modules, particularly for sessional staff, as teaching online requires a different set of skills and knowledge that needs to become a component of staff development. Given the emergence of micro-credentials, one provider suggested that content needs to be customised to meet specific industry needs. Industry links are also considered important to enable education specific interaction technologies. The new technology should be able to support the development of a framework to go back into newly designed subjects after the first or second launch to capture evidence early and resolve any issues as quickly as possible. Noting the feedback from the student panel, participants agreed that there is currently a paucity of one on one student teacher communication in the online learning space and this needs to be addressed.

How do you as a provider quality assure and validate your online learning offerings?

Providers use a range of devices to quality assure their online offerings. Several institutions have implemented quality assurance frameworks such as Quality Matters and benchmarking tools provided by TELAS and ACODE, whilst others use a variety of devices such as student feedback and evaluation, iterative design and analytics. Providers also rely on QILT, COPHE benchmarking and external audits to ensure quality. To ensure equivalency of outcomes and the student experience participants agreed that it is important to hold all modes of learning to the same standards and whilst approaches may differ, content and the information to students needs to be the same. TEQSA has stated in its TEL Guidance Note that, “Providers should note that the requirements of the HES Framework must be met and continue to be met irrespective of the modes of delivery and participation adopted by a provider.” 

What role should TEQSA have in enhancing the quality assurance of online learning?

Feedback from participants suggests that there is a role for TEQSA in the quality assurance of online learning. There was general consensus that a new set of guidelines is not required, that online and face to face learning share enough commonality so that existing frameworks can be used, with some modifications, to meet the quality assurance needs of online learning.  Participants suggested that TEQSA could provide resources such as good practice notes and examples to guide and assist providers navigate this new landscape. Several participants suggested that TEQSA could organise benchmarking events, where providers could network and share information on their experiences. Given the perception that much of online learning is of poor quality, there was some suggestion that TEQSA could advocate for equivalence of delivery modes and support the credibility of online learning. 

There was some discussion regarding the role of TEQSA in compliance as the regulator and whether its remit should include quality assurance, which involves advice. One participant suggested that TEQSA could provide a soft audit of quality assurance during the mid-accreditation period, in much the same way that the Australian Universities Quality Agency did.

Wrap up

TEQSA’s CEO Anthony McClaran, Chief Commissioner Nick Saunders and Commissioner Lin Martin closed the forum, reflecting on the input the group provided in this emerging area of higher education. Australia has a long history of offering distance education and it was generally agreed that Australia currently offers a robust range of online courses. Nevertheless, greater demand for a range of offerings, which now includes micro-credentials means that higher education providers will need to develop and embed more structure in their quality assurance frameworks to protect the quality of online learning. Professor Nick Saunders noted that TEQSA has now entered a phase where it is sufficiently resourced and well placed to be more supportive of quality enhancement in this area. The agency wants to protect providers, but also seeks to encourage them to embrace the changes required of the sector to respond to the needs of students and implement new modes of teaching and learning. In addition, TEQSA does not want regulation to stifle the growing emergence of online learning and will continue to work with the sector to support innovation and ensure quality in this space.

For further consideration and next steps

The following recommendations, based on the feedback received from during this forum, will be shared with TEQSA’s Commissioners and Senior Management Team, and be considered as part of TEQSA’s forward planning:  

1. TEQSA will consult with the Department of Education and Training on the definitions of online learning and the inclusion of relevant data in future higher education data collections. 
2. TEQSA will discuss with the Australian Qualifications Framework Review Panel issues around the regulation of online learning, including micro-credentials. 
3. TEQSA will consider the further development of a survey of the independent providers, organised by Dr Margot McNeill, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching), International College of Management Sydney. This second round of the survey will be sent to interested parties, requesting information that could be used to identify and develop approaches to good practice.
4. TEQSA will provide advice to the Minister of Education on its planned approach to quality assurance measures which will ensure that Australian students can be protected in studying international higher education qualifications online.
5. TEQSA will continue to engage in discussions on online learning with its international partners and other international quality assurance agencies and governments.

Body

Purpose and Background

TEQSA’s Risk Assessment Framework (RAF) outlines TEQSA’s approach for undertaking risk assessments of higher education providers, including the set of risk indicators used. Risk ratings for indicators are derived by TEQSA giving consideration to risk thresholds and the specific circumstances of providers. This includes contextual information about the provider and information on the provider’s own risk controls, where known to TEQSA. If TEQSA identifies potential risks, the provider is invited to discuss the risks and offer any further evidence that may impact the risk assessment.

This document provides examples of context and provider controls that may be taken into account by TEQSA in rating a risk indicator, to assist providers in participating in TEQSA’s risk assessment process.

Examples of Relevant Evidence and Context

In considering the examples below, please note the following:

• These examples are not exhaustive, restrictive or directive.
• Evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of strategies/risk controls (e.g. a report from the provider’s own systematic and timely review process with data showing positive results), carries more weight than a general, narrative description.
• Different levels of evidence may be required to change a risk rating, depending on the significance of the issue and context of the provider (i.e. in some cases a combination of factors may support an adjustment to a risk rating).
• These examples focus on information that may lead to a positive change in rating. There may be times when TEQSA upgrades a risk flag (i.e. higher risk rating) based on broader information.
• TEQSA takes into account a provider’s regulatory history as part of the risk assessment process. This would include any findings from recent regulatory processes about the provider’s own risk management capability.

 

Risk Indicator	Examples of relevant information that may lead to adjustments to risk ratings
Student load	A strategic plan and/or business plan demonstrating that the growth has been appropriately planned for, with actions such as: new campus or premises developed/acquired to accommodate student growth capital investment to cope with the student load recruitment that supports maintenance of academic staff levels evaluation that student experience has not been adversely affected Written agreement with strategic partners describing the provision of facilities and equipment and services to support the student load Historical data which shows that the fluctuation is temporary or the provider has coped with that level of student load previously
Attrition rate	Data provided showing improving attrition rate as a result of measures such as: identification and tracking of students at risk with support strategies/projects in place analysis of student performance in relation to admission Evidence on reasons for attrition leading to adjusted attrition rate (e.g. data demonstrating significant proportion of students moving from a regional provider to another institution)
Progress rate and Completions	Data provided showing improving progress rate (and completions) as a result of measures such as: Identification and tracking of students at risk with support strategies/projects in place analysis of student performance in relation to admission
Graduate satisfaction	Data provided showing improving student satisfaction as a result of measures such as: Analysis of teacher performance Review of course content and delivery model from provider Analysis of achievement of learning outcomes from provider
Graduate destinations	Data provided showing improving graduate destination result as a result of measures such as: Analysis of market positioning of the institution/course from provider Analysis of achievement of learning outcomes from provider Significant and unexpected decline of job market or analysis of specific local market or discipline conditions Evidence that the provider has committed additional career support resources against a plan to assist graduates to transition to employment
Senior academic leaders	Single or highly specialised field of education with qualified core staff providing academic leadership as demonstrated through: Academic standing Active in the relevant academic communities (e.g. research, consultancy or advisor of contemporary issues) Peer/professional recognition Course management responsibilities Staff supervision (academic and non-academic) Course budgeting Purchasing Reporting to boards/committees Oversight of stakeholder consultations (e.g. students, employers) Course development responsibilities Prepare course proposal Approve course documents Review course performance Evidence of key roles and responsibilities undertaken by senior academic leaders in curriculum and assessment, pedagogy, staff management, professional development, research, and/or scholarship Academic appointment structures that are not reflective of pay scales (e.g. a not-for-profit institution with a flat pay structure), with supporting evidence of staff in academic leadership roles in line with the above examples
Student-to-staff ratio	Delivery models that have different staffing requirements (evidence of efficacy required, including strong student outcomes) Consortium models with teaching staff provided by related entities or third-parties (formal agreement required) A significant portion of offshore delivery (offshore staffing information required)
Academic staff on casual contracts	Policies of equivalency for development and evidence of integration of casual and permanent staff Evidence of funding of professional development for casual academic staff Statements/policies of casual staff duties limited to supporting roles Evidence regarding how industry experts are used
Financial viability	Changed financial circumstances supported by independently verified information such as Audited financial statements or Bank statements.
Financial sustainability	Student projections supported by historical numbers showing an improving trend Financial projections supported by robust analysis and key assumptions For providers with an economic dependence or in receipt of financial support from a related party, evidence of the instrument confirming the nature and extent of the commitment such as a Deed of guarantee or similar undertaking from the related party Written copies of capital injection commitments

Body

Overview

The Professional Accreditation Bodies Forum was convened on 14 December 2018 as an opportunity for TEQSA to receive feedback directly from professional accrediting bodies about the ways in which we can work together to effectively reduce duplication and streamline accreditation processes. It also responded to the advice of the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP) which recommended closer collaboration between TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies. 

Over the past five years, TEQSA has entered into partnerships with 40 departments, agencies, peak bodies and professional accreditation bodies. Invitations to this forum were extended to 31 professional accreditation bodies with whom TEQSA has signed, or is in negotiations with to sign, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Approximately 50 representatives participated in the forum, representing the financial advice, teaching, health, and engineering sectors, amongst others.   

The event included an update from Mr Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive Officer of TEQSA, including the intersection between professional accreditation and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (Higher Education Standards Framework 2015), the principles that guide TEQSA’s engagement with professional accreditation bodies and what we have learnt through interaction and pilot projects with professional accreditation partners thus far.  

Mr Steve Erskine, Australian Government Department of Education and Training, gave an update on the actions arising from advice provided by the HESP to the then Minister for Education and Training in early 2018.

Dr Mark Brimble, Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA), Ms Phoebe Haywood, Queensland College of Teachers (QCT), and Ms Pauline Tang, The International Centre of Excellence in Tourism and Hospitality Education (THE-ICE), were invited to present case studies of different streamlined regulation and examples of working with TEQSA. Participants were encouraged to ask questions of the presenters but also to explore how these models could be transferred and used across different professions. 

Presentations from the forum are available via the presentations page on the TEQSA website. 

Participants conducted small group discussions focussing on the following questions:

• how does TEQSA work more effectively with professional accreditation bodies in the future? 
• what further support do professional accreditation bodies need to develop risk based approaches to regulation? 
• how can we systematise greater information sharing between TEQSA and professional accreditation bodies?  

Representatives from each group reported back as part of the final plenary session, facilitated by Ms Narelle Mills, Australian Dental Council (ADC), and feedback from this session will inform the development of a shared action plan in 2019.   

Approximately 77 per cent of post-event survey respondents rated the forum as very good or excellent, and overall there was strong support for TEQSA to host more forums for professional accreditation bodies and continue to build relationships and discuss ways to further streamline accreditation in the future.  

Major themes discussed

TEQSA and professional accreditation bodies working more effectively together

Most participants agreed that a greater understanding of each other’s responsibilities, processes, and principles for decision making would enhance the relationship between TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies. It was suggested that both TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies need to explore and determine what it is that each would require in order to be satisfied with, and confidently rely on, the findings, analysis and decisions made by the other party.    

There was strong support for TEQSA to hold more forums, either open to all professional accreditation bodies or targeted to those operating in similar fields. It was suggested that forums could also be thematic and used as a way to consult and workshop ideas with stakeholders. TEQSA could also be invited to participate in meetings and events hosted by the professional accreditation bodies and their members to assist in the development of a shared understanding and mutual respect and recognition. One participant suggested moving to a culture of shared terminology where possible to also assist with this process.   

In acknowledgement that some professional accreditation bodies are currently working more closely with TEQSA than others, many participants agreed that the MoUs should be examined to determine the level each is operating at, as well as where these could be expanded on to increase and formalise information sharing across the board. Some participants suggested an examination of the data currently collected and held by both parties to see where there are commonalities, particularly at the course level, to make information sharing more relevant and effective.    

Other suggestions included: developing a culture that normalised proactive and regular information sharing between both parties; being more transparent and making more information available in the public domain; building relationships and encouraging contact at an operational level; working together to build capacity within providers; supporting training opportunities for professional accreditation body staff at TEQSA; and considering nuanced approaches to working together, in acknowledgment of the varying levels of operational maturity and requirements of the professional accreditation bodies.   

The majority of participants were in agreement to work together more collaboratively with an aim of developing a model of partnership between the professional accreditation bodies and the regulator.  

Navigating variations in standards and requirements 

Participants acknowledged the challenges of streamlining accreditation activities considering the different requirements, standards and expectations of organisations, and the complexity of having to adhere to state and/or federal requirements.

One suggestion was to determine the requirements that are different due to legislation, as opposed to differences in approaches that are embedded in processes and the culture of the organisation or the industry. Once identified, how can TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies work together to support the changes that might be required to achieve a more streamlined approach?  

One participant raised the need to map differences between bodies by looking at the drivers. Are the standards, processes or requirements driven by public concern and confidence, student interests, standards-based regulation, or an improvement and enhancement approach? 

One participant raised the need for support for those professional accreditation bodies seeking recognition or operating in the international space. 

Reducing duplication

There was strong support from participants to work together to reduce duplication, and in turn reduce burden for higher education providers. Some participants suggested mapping the evidence requirements of TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies to identify the commonalities and opportunities where the same evidence may be able to be used for both processes. There may also be an opportunity to develop a template for this which meets both purposes and makes submitting evidence more streamlined for the provider. 

Raised during one of the presentations, there was some support amongst participants to explore the possibility of a shared information portal, which would allow different organisations to access the same data and evidence submitted once by the higher education provider. 

Participants also discussed sharing external experts, who could submit a report for use by both TEQSA and the professional accreditation bodies. It was suggested that staff from the professional accreditation bodies could also be trained in a similar way to TEQSA staff, enhancing a shared understanding and capacity, as well as building trust across the organisations. 

Some concerns were raised that joint accreditation processes, when trying to meet different requirements, can actually be more burdensome and resource-intensive. However, models of conducting parallel assessments may be more effective.  

Risk-based approach

Participants discussed adopting a risk-based approach to professional accreditation, and there was strong support to learn more about how this is implemented at TEQSA and the philosophy and principles behind decision making. Having a more thorough understanding and greater confidence in TEQSA’s approach could lead to professional accreditation bodies adopting TEQSA’s risk ratings of providers, and reducing the scope of assessment for low risk providers.

One participant suggested that, for mature and established providers and courses, it was not necessary to assess all elements during every cycle. Instead, efforts could be concentrated on identifying any changes since the last cycle and assessing how these have been managed and implemented. It was noted that an ability to adopt this approach might also depend on the maturity of the professional accreditation body as well as the provider. 

Other suggestions included: identifying opportunities for professional accreditation bodies to provide more input into TEQSA risk assessments; exploring further how each organisation defines ‘risk’ to find commonalities; looking at models adopted in other jurisdictions; and further consideration by TEQSA about implementing greater transparency of risk thresholds.  

Next steps

The following questions, based on the feedback received from this forum, will be considered as part of TEQSA’s forward planning. 

1. How are our MoUs currently operating and how can these be improved? Do our MoUs need to be reviewed to be more prescriptive and specific about the type of information being shared and a formal process for doing so?
2. What systems can be put in place to enhance relationships and create more of a partnership approach between TEQSA and professional accreditation bodies? How might a broad approach to working with professional accreditation bodies need to be nuanced for specific professional accreditation bodies if there are different requirements to overcome? 
3. How can TEQSA consider the sharing of external experts with professional accreditation bodies as part of the current Expert Review Project? 
4. What further forums can TEQSA lead to continue the conversations? What training or workshops could be offered to enhance understanding of TEQSA’s risk based approach, quality assurance, information and data collection and analysis, or the Higher Education Standards Framework 2015? Participants agreed to be a sounding board for future consultation about working together, and agreed to help bring other bodies not present at this event, into the conversation. How can TEQSA facilitate greater communication and collaboration in this regard across the sector?

Body

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, TEQSA’s logo, any material protected by a trade mark and where otherwise noted, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence.

The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence.

The document must be attributed as the TEQSA Regulator Performance Framework Report 2017–2018.

Contacts

More information about the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is available online.

Comments and enquiries about this report may be directed to:

Manager, Executive Office

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

GPO Box 1672

MELBOURNE VIC 3001

T: 1300 739 585

E: enquiries@teqsa.gov.au

Acknowledgements

This report reflects the efforts of many people. Special thanks go to TEQSA staff involved in contributing and coordinating material.

Certification by the TEQSA Accountable Authority

The Hon Dan Tehan MP

Minister for Education 

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

30 November 2018

Dear Minister,

As the accountable authority of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), we have pleasure in presenting to you TEQSA’s Regulator Performance Framework report for the year ended 30 June 2018.

TEQSA’s report has been prepared in accordance with the Regulator Performance Framework (RPF) released by the Commonwealth Government in October 2014. The RPF requires the accountable authority of the entity to give a report on the RPF to the entity’s responsible Minister for noting.

This report describes the progress made over the course of 2017–18 to meet the performance measures in the RPF, as self-assessed by TEQSA. The report has been reviewed and externally validated by the Higher Education Standards Panel.

In addition, we, as the accountable authority of TEQSA, have certified this report as required by the RPF. In our opinion, the TEQSA Regulator Performance Framework Report 2017–2018 accurately reflects the performance of TEQSA, and complies with the RPF.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Nicholas Saunders, AO    

Chief Commissioner

Professor Cliff Walsh        

Commissioner

Dr Linley Martin

Commissioner

The Higher Education Standards Panel

Professor Nicholas Saunders

Chief Commissioner

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

GPO Box 1672

Melbourne VIC 3001

Dear Professor Saunders

The Higher Education Standards Panel is pleased to provide formal external validation of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency’s (TEQSA) Regulator Performance Framework Report 2017–2018.

The Higher Education Standards Panel reviewed this report at its meeting of 9 November 2018. The Panel agreed that the self-assessment outcomes reported by TEQSA, which were based on qualitative and quantitative data collected by TEQSA, and the results of a sector-wide survey, met the requirements of the Regulator Performance Framework.

The Higher Education Standards Panel is therefore happy to externally validate the report, prior to it being formally certified by the accountable authority and submitted to the Minister for Education for noting.

Yours sincerely

The Higher Education Standards Panel

Professor Ian O’Connor AC, Chair

On behalf of:

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause (Deputy Chair), Professor Kent Anderson, Dr Krystal Evans, The Hon Phil Honeywood, Dr Sadie Heckenberg, Ms Adrienne Nieuwenhuis, Dr Don Owers AM (Members)

9 November 2018

50 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra ACT 2600

 

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Commonwealth Government released its Regulator Performance Framework (RPF) in October 2014. The RPF was developed in consultation with a range of stakeholders, and consists of six outcomes-based key performance indicators (KPIs) covering:

• reducing regulatory burden
• communications
• risk-based and proportionate approaches
• efficient and coordinated monitoring
• transparency
• continuous improvement.

Commonwealth regulators that administer, monitor or enforce regulation are required to implement the RPF. 

TEQSA is required to self-assess its performance, and then obtain external validation of that self-assessment. The Higher Education Standards Panel has provided this external validation and the TEQSA accountable authority has certified the report. The report has been provided to the Minister for Education for noting.

TEQSA’s RPF consists of the following six KPIs:

1. Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers
2. TEQSA’s communication with higher education providers is clear, targeted and effective
3. Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed
4. TEQSA’s compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated
5. TEQSA’s dealings with higher education providers are open, transparent and consistent
6. TEQSA’s regulatory framework continues to be improved in consultation with stakeholders.

These evidence metrics were published on the TEQSA website. For more information, refer to TEQSA’s Regulator Performance Framework 2015-16 (Version 1.0).

1.2 Basis of self-assessment

The RPF report is based on operational qualitative and quantitative data and the results of a sector-wide survey completed in June 2018. The sector-wide survey was based on TEQSA’s Regulator Performance Framework 2015-16 (Version 1.0).

All of the operational data and most of survey results also appear in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017–2018.

1.2.1 Operational data

Operational data considered for the RPF includes metrics relating to:

• risk ratings and outcomes of decisions
• decision-making timeframes
• feedback from direct engagement with the sector (for example from provider briefings)
• statistics on website views and document downloads for reports and support materials published by TEQSA.

All operational data can be found in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18.

1.2.2 About the survey

The 2018 survey consisted of:

• a provider-specific version, sent to all registered providers as well as those who had submitted initial registration applications. The survey was for completion by the principal contact and included a section for Vice-Chancellors and Chief Executive Officers (VC/CEO) to offer comments
• a brief survey for the operational head of selected peak/professional/student bodies.

The survey was sent to 235 principal contacts from higher education providers and 42 representatives from peak, professional and student bodies (PPSBs). A total of 156 principal contacts and 24 PPSBs completed the survey, representing a response rate of 66 per cent and 57 per cent respectively. A summary of the results against each of the KPIs for 2017 18 compared with 2016-17 for both groups is at Appendix A.

The objective of the survey was to obtain feedback to increase TEQSA’s accountability, better understand its impact on higher education providers, and improve its performance. The use of the survey results in the publicly-reported TEQSA RPF is part of TEQSA’s approach to increase its transparency and accountability. Consistent with this approach, a summary of the results of the TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 will be published in conjunction with this report on the TEQSA website.

1.2.3 Reporting period

This report is for the 2017–18 financial year.

1.2.4 Enquiries

For enquiries relating to this report, contact enquiries@teqsa.gov.au.

2. Executive summary

The 2017-18 self-assessment against the RPF describes how the agency has responded to feedback received from stakeholders through direct engagements and the annual survey. 

The assessment highlights the continuing achievements against the RPF and the declining relevance of some of the performance indicators established in 2015. The incorporation of the six KPIs in corporate planning and the use of feedback from stakeholders have firmly aligned the agency with the intended effect of the RPF.

The assessment also reveals the change in the areas of concern to providers. In 2015, stakeholders were concerned about the time taken to publish decisions, and the timeliness referred to in the targets of KPI 2 reflects this concern. Since then, stakeholders have been primarily concerned about the time taken to make the decisions themselves as the time taken from submission to decision deteriorated in 2016-17, and then further in 2017-18. These matters have been taken into account in the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2018-22 and are discussed in detail in TEQSA’s Annual Reports of 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The assessment against each of the KPIs of the RPF demonstrated that all but one of the targets was achieved for 2017-18. In the case of KPI 1, there was a decrease in the percentage of stakeholders that rated the agency as good or excellent in relation to the target use of a case management model for regulatory purposes allowing tailoring of processes according to circumstances of individual providers. Comments from stakeholders indicated that the turnover in assessment staff added regulatory burden due to the loss of TEQSA corporate memory and expertise in relation to provider operations. This reduction in satisfaction first appeared in the 2017 survey and, as more providers have experienced an assessment since the reduction in TEQSA’s staffing, the experience of the consequent lack of continuity has spread across providers. As stated in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 and reflected in the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2018-22, the additional funding and staffing from the 2018-19 Budget will greatly assist the agency to address the concerns of providers regarding staff turnover and the time taken for decision making. While recruitment and training of new staff will assist in improving the efficiency of assessment, the agency has also commenced a further review of its assessment processes.

2.1 RPF results at a glance

Table 1 summarises the annual results against TEQSA’s RPF KPIs for 2017-18 and shows that all but one of the targets related to the RPF were achieved in 2017-18. KPI 1 was only partially achieved because the stakeholder survey results show a decrease in the percentage of respondents that rated the agency as good or excellent compared with 2016-17.

Table 1. Results of self-assessment against TEQSA’s RPF KPIs for 2017-18

RPF Key Performance Indicator	2017-18 Result
Regulation does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers	Partially achieved
TEQSA’s communication with higher education providers is clear, targeted and effective	Achieved
Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed	Achieved
TEQSA’s compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated	Achieved
TEQSA’s dealings with higher education providers are open, transparent and consistent	Achieved
TEQSA’s regulatory framework continues to be improved in consultation with stakeholders	Achieved

3. Performance by KPI

KPI 1 – Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 1:

• evidence of regular, constructive consultation with the sector
• a series of reductions in administrative burden already achieved, with further progress planned
• engagement with international agencies to contribute to development of transnational policy
• the use of a case management model for regulatory purposes allowing tailoring of processes according to circumstances of individual providers.

As in previous years, TEQSA regularly engaged with the sector at the individual provider level as well as through provider peak bodies. Additionally, as detailed in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18¹, a specific roundtable consultation was undertaken with for-profit, not-for-profit and TAFE providers in response to the stakeholder survey results for 2017. Feedback from this consultation informed TEQSA’s decision to review the approach to case management to enhance use of a partnership model. This objective has been incorporated in planning for 2018-22². 

Since 2016-17, the risk-differentiated Core+ methodology has been applied to the scope of all TEQSA assessments except for the assessment of initial registration applications. In 2017-18, the TEQSA high risk provider policy was published to further guide risk analysis and regulatory interventions. The policy establishes a set of principles that ensure greater differential treatment of providers based on their risk rating. It further demonstrates the agency’s increasing focus on those providers that present the highest risk to students, and correspondingly, narrows the scope of scrutiny given to providers rated as low risk. This reduced scope is also applied through reduced evidence requirements for subsequent assessments of renewal of registration applications from low-risk providers. Also in 2017-18, the agency commenced an enhanced monitoring project to improve the way the agency uses information to quality assure and regulate higher education providers³.

TEQSA’s international engagement continues to play an important role in protecting, enhancing and promoting the quality and integrity of Australia’s higher education sector internationally. In 2017-18, the agency continued its involvement in quality assurance networks, including participation in the University Quality Assurance Forum and the Australia India Education Council’s workshop on online education. Agency staff also participated in a pilot joint assessment aimed at determining the equivalency of the accreditation processes of Australia and Hong Kong. TEQSA also signed or renewed Memoranda of Cooperation with seven peak international bodies. Further details of this involvement can be found in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18⁴. 

The average 2018 stakeholder survey results for KPI 1 overall found a decrease in the percentage of providers that rated the agency as good or excellent (56 per cent) compared with 2017 (66 per cent)⁵. As in past years the vast majority of providers rated case management as very important, but providers’ rating of their experience of the case management approach dropped in relation to responsiveness, consideration of the needs of the provider, and TEQSA’s knowledge of the provider. As also reported in last year’s RPF Report, respondents commented on the turnover of case managers and the lack of case manager engagement with providers⁶.

Self-assessment – partially achieved

Although the agency continued to develop and implement initiatives to further reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on providers during 2017-18, the continued turnover in case managers contributed to a decrease in the percentage of providers that rated the agency as good or excellent in relation to KPI 1. As reported above, this feedback has been taken into account in planning for 2018-22 and a revised case management approach is being developed and implemented that will include enhanced use of a partnership model. 

KPI 2 – TEQSA's communication with higher education providers is clear, targeted and effective

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 2:

• TEQSA’s decisions are provided in a timely manner, clearly articulating the reasons for decisions
• TEQSA gives all higher education providers a reasonable opportunity to address matters relevant to a decision by TEQSA before making a decision that affects the provider
• specific consultation with the sector occurs before proposed changes are made to TEQSA’s practices
• comprehensive current guidance material for regulatory policies and processes is publicly available and updated
• all general information that is required by providers is current and publicly available.

As reported in previous TEQSA RPF reports, TEQSA continued to make recommended adverse findings available to applicants before a decision was made, with the applicant being provided with the reasons for the proposed decision and allowed a reasonable opportunity to comment. The comments provided were taken into account in making the final decision. In 2017-18, this process  applied to a larger proportion of re-registration decisions that in previous years as there was an increase in the proportion of renewal of registration assessments with an adverse decision compared with previous years⁷.

In relation to guidance material, new guidance notes were published in 2017-18 on Credit and RPL, Grievance and Complaint Handling and Workforce Planning. The guidance note on Wellbeing and Safety was also released for comment, and revised based on feedback received during the year⁸. The first in a new series of materials in the form of a good practice note on Addressing Contract Cheating to Safeguard Academic Integrity was also released in 2017-18⁹.  

In relation to access to general information, from the launch of the new TEQSA website in November 2017 to 30 June 2018 there were over 40,000 page views of the information about TEQSA’s guidance notes¹⁰. In addition, the 2018 Stakeholder Survey found that the majority of providers rated the clarity of application guides (70 per cent) and online forms (69 per cent), helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application (66 per cent) and portal information (66 per cent), and the clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements (65 per cent) as good or excellent¹¹. This result was lower than achieved in 2017 where the results were between 69 and 78 per cent¹². With regard to guidance and support materials, between 83 and 91 per cent of stakeholders rated the relevance, quality, usefulness, accessibility and quantity of information as good or excellent, which is a similar result to that achieved in 2017¹³.

Self-assessment – achieved

The agency continues to consult the sector on changes to practices and to produce guidance notes to assist providers. Guidance notes on the new TEQSA website continue to be frequently accessed, and the guidance notes appear to be highly valued. 

KPI 3 – Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 3:

• a comprehensive capacity for multifactorial risk analysis of all provider types
• integration of risk analysis and regulatory decision making, by use of comprehensive detailed current datasets gathered and maintained to inform risk analyses and regulatory interventions
• progressive development of the scope and application of the differentiated model (known as Core+) to further reduce burden on demonstrated low-risk providers.

In 2017-18, TEQSA reviewed and made technical changes to its Risk Assessment Framework, process, risk tools and systems to align with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 and published the updated Risk Assessment Framework in April 2018. Cycle 5 of the annual provider risk assessments was completed in late 2017. Risk assessments for standalone English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) and Foundation Studies providers were delayed due to the release of revised ELICOS Standards¹⁴. 

As in previous years, an analysis of risk profiles of providers and the outcome of regulatory decisions on renewal of registration applications in 2017-18 demonstrated a strong relationship of risk and assessment outcomes¹⁵ with 75 per cent of providers rated as moderate or high risk receiving an adverse decision and 100 per cent of providers rated as low risk receiving a positive decision¹⁶. In the case of course accreditations and renewals of accreditation, only a very small number of applications were submitted during 2017-18 by low risk providers, thereby limiting conclusions that could be drawn about the relationship between provider risk rating and regulatory outcomes for courses¹⁷.

In 2017-18, all renewal applications were assessed in accordance with the Core+ methodology, and the agency developed further guidance to support assessment staff in applying the regulatory principles of necessity, risk and proportionality. The agency also commenced planning for a review of the approach to assessment of providers previously assessed by TEQSA.

The average stakeholder survey result in relation to this KPI fell from the previous year¹⁸ (from 57 per cent in 2017 to 52 per cent in 2018). Discussions with providers have revealed a need for further information about risk assessments and how they are used by TEQSA. Communication on this topic has been incorporated in planning for 2018-19.

Self-assessment – achieved

TEQSA has updated the Risk Assessment Framework to ensure the relevance of annual risk assessments to regulatory work. The relationship between assessment outcomes and the risk ratings demonstrate the appropriateness of the risk-based approach, with further developments planned for ELICOS and Foundation Studies providers. Further internal materials were developed during the year to clarify the application of the regulatory principles and to support a consistent approach to regulatory assessment and decision making.

KPI 4 – TEQSA's compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 4:

• collaboration with the Department of Education and Training (the department) to streamline and automate data collection on providers, and enhance access and sharing
• collaboration with professional bodies to enhance data sharing and thus reduce regulatory burden on providers that are regulated by both TEQSA and a professional body
• specific interactions with international regulatory agencies, as warranted, for assessments of cross-border education from Australian providers
• demonstrated transparency of inspection and monitoring arrangements.

In 2017-18, agency staff regularly met with departmental officers to ensure the national data collection was fit for purpose and available for annual risk assessments. A Memorandum of Understanding with the department about sharing of information has been maintained. For providers that do not report through the department’s Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS), TEQSA collected information through a provider information request under section 28 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).

TEQSA currently has 25 agreements in place with professional bodies, and signed or renewed agreements with seven bodies in 2017-18¹⁹. The agency continued to meet quarterly with CPA Australia to share information about providers of accounting courses. TEQSA also contributed to reviews of professional accreditation, including for the health professions, that sought to reduce duplication in requirements for providers delivering courses that require professional accreditation.

In late 2017, TEQSA undertook a joint assessment with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications of a course delivered by a third party on behalf of an Australian university. The key purpose of the exercise was to determine the equivalence of the accreditation processes of the two agencies as a first step to reducing duplication in international quality assurance. This information will also be used as part of the renewal of registration assessment of the Australian university.

For KPI 4, an average of 52 per cent of providers rated TEQSA as good or excellent in the 2018 survey which is comparable with the 2017 results (average of 55 per cent)²⁰.

Self-assessment – achieved

TEQSA has continued to seek and engage in opportunities to improve the use of data and to collaborate with relevant national and international groups to improve coordination of actions on providers. This collaboration is taking time to develop into changed processes for professional accreditation, as many pre-date the establishment of TEQSA. TEQSA has effectively utilised its association with international quality networks to share information with a view to building shared approaches to quality assurance to further enhance monitoring of the sector and focus regulatory intervention where there is the greatest risk.

KPI 5 – TEQSA's dealings with higher education providers are open, transparent and consistent

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 5:

• a clear publicly-available risk framework and articulated risk analysis process
• transparency in the results of the regulatory decision-making process
• public sharing of aggregate observations of performance and risks derived from regulatory experience with the sector, through publication of analytical reports
• a consultative approach taken for new application guides and guidance notes for the transition to the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015.

Consistent with previous years, the agency continued to make the Risk Assessment Framework available on the TEQSA website with the updated Framework published in April 2018. This was viewed over 1,800 times by 30 June 2018²¹. As noted in KPI 3, discussions with providers in 2018 revealed the need to provide further information regarding the risk assessment process.

In 2017-18, TEQSA continued to maintain and update the National Register of Higher Education Providers (National Register). As reported in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18, the National Register was viewed more than 230,000 times since the launch of the new TEQSA website in November 2017. Stakeholders continued to rate the quality of the information on the National Register highly, with 74 per cent of providers rating the quality of the information on the National Register as good or excellent, a slight decrease from the previous year’s result of 79 per cent²².

In November 2017, TEQSA released the third edition of the Key financial metrics on Australia’s higher education sector. The report included a special focus on newly registered providers. The annual statistics report and a report on the assessment insights gathered from analysis of assessment outcomes were prepared during 2017-18, and these reports were released in early 2018-19. 

As outlined under KPI 2, guidance notes continued to be heavily accessed and highly rated by providers. New guidance notes continued to be developed in response to identified needs of providers. In 2017-18, the agency also engaged with prospective providers through a joint workshop with the Council of Private Higher Education Providers and through targeted individual meetings with prospective providers. 

The average stakeholder survey results for 2018 indicate a decrease in the proportion of stakeholders that rated the agency good or excellent for KPI 5, from 68 per cent in 2017 to 62 per cent in 2018²³. 

Self-assessment – achieved

In 2017-18, TEQSA continued to prepare and provide information to inform providers and other stakeholders about regulation of the sector. This program of work is now well established and responding to meet the changing needs of providers and other stakeholders. 

KPI 6 – TEQSA's regulatory framework continues to be improved in consultation with stakeholders

The following targets were used to assess performance against KPI 6:

• well-established, productive consultative mechanisms with stakeholders, and use of a variety of media and channels to convey information to stakeholders
• regular engagement with the Minister for Education and the department.

In addition to the consultations reported under KPI 2 and individual engagements of Commissioners and senior staff at higher education conferences and meetings, the agency held the first of two roundtable events to discuss areas where TEQSA could improve based on the TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2017. The feedback from these sessions informed the development of the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2018-22. 

In late 2017, the agency established a Student Expert Advisory Group. The Group met in March and July 2018 and discussed the role of TEQSA and how the agency can engage with the wider higher education student community. 

The agency launched a new website in November 2017 that incorporated feedback from external stakeholders. The second TEQSA conference was held in late November 2017 with almost 800 registrations including 65 sponsored students for the three-day event. Students featured prominently in the conference consistent with the theme of Students, Quality, Success.

An occasional forum series was launched on 2017-18, with forums held on student attrition and contract cheating. Both forums were well attended and accompanied by published reports, made available through the TEQSA website and in hardcopy.

As identified in KPI 4, TEQSA staff regularly meet with officers from the department to ensure the national data collection is fit for purpose. TEQSA also regularly meets with other agencies, including the regulator of the vocational education and training sector, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and other regulators to share information about prospective and current providers and their related entities. 

In 2017-18, TEQSA and ASQA negotiated an approach for coordinated assessment of dual-sector providers based on periodic sharing of findings rather than through joint assessment. The joint register of risk profiles for dual-sector providers was maintained and used by assessment staff to establish evidence requirements and inform the scope of assessment.

The TEQSA Commissioners and CEO met regularly with the Higher Education Standards Panel during 2017-18. Key topics discussed included: the regulatory impact of professional accreditation; the sector’s response to sexual assault and sexual harassment; and the review of the impact of the TEQSA Act.

The average stakeholder survey results for this KPI show a drop in satisfaction compared with 2017 where 61 per cent of providers rated the agency as good or excellent, compared with 57 per cent in 2018²⁴. The drop was particularly evident in relation to making process improvements where the proportion of providers that rated the agency as good or excellent dropped from 62 per cent in 2017 to 52 per cent in 2018²⁵. In relation to this measure, TEQSA acknowledges the further deterioration in the time taken to make decisions as reported in the TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18²⁶. 

Self-assessment – achieved

During 2017-18, TEQSA broadened both the type and scale of its engagement with stakeholders, and stakeholder feedback was regularly used to review the regulatory approach and for planning. This is reflected in the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2018-22 which focusses on the key areas of concern regarding the time taken to complete assessments and make decisions, and the relationship between providers and assessment staff. The agency is also continuing to refine its engagement with other regulators, particularly ASQA and also professional accreditation bodies, to increase its use of data and responsiveness to risks. 

Appendix A – Comparison of stakeholder survey results

Table 2 summarises the results of the survey of providers about 2017-18 activity compared with 2016-17 for each KPI. 

Table 2. Summary of provider principal contact ratings, 2017 and 2018

		% OF SCORES AS GOOD OR EXCELLENT
		PROVIDER (2018)		PROVIDER (2017)
KPI 1 - Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers		55.8		66.0
KPI 2 - TEQSA’s communication with higher education providers is clear, targeted and effective		63.8		71.7
KPI 3 - Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed		51.7		57.0
KPI 4 - TEQSA’s compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated		51.6		54.9
KPI 5 - TEQSA’s dealings with higher education providers are open, transparent and consistent		61.5		67.6
KPI 6 - TEQSA’s regulatory framework continues to be improved in consultation with stakeholders		57.2		60.8
Overall		71.1		79.7

Table 3 presents the results for Peak Professional and Student Bodies (PPSB). With the exception of KPI 4, the results for PPSB respondents are consistent with or better than those observed in 2017.

Table 3. Summary of Peak Professional Student Bodies (PPSB) scores, 2017 and 2018

	% OF SCORES AS GOOD OR EXCELLENT
	PPSB (2018)		PPSB (2017)
KPI 1 - Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers	93.7		91.7
KPI 2 - TEQSA’s communication with higher education providers is clear, targeted and effective	87.1		84.6
KPI 3 - Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed	93.3		89.5
KPI 4 - TEQSA’s compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated	80.0		85.0
KPI 5 - TEQSA’s dealings with higher education providers are open, transparent and consistent	91.3		88.9
KPI 6 - TEQSA’s regulatory framework continues to be improved in consultation with stakeholders	79.0		66.7
Overall	100.0		87.5

Notes

1. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 pp.44 and 47.
2. TEQSA Corporate Plan 2018-22 pp.12 and 16.
3. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.27.
4. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 pp.28–29, and 41.
5. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.8-9 and 23.
6. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey Report 2018 pp.18-19.
7. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.36.
8. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.9.
9. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.8.
10. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.49.
11. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.16 and 23-24.
12. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.23-24.
13. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.20-21 and 24.
14. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.37.
15. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.38.
16. An adverse decision includes conditions, rejection or less than 7-year registration.
17. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.38.
18. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.10-11 and 23-24.
19. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.40.
20. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.11-12 and 24.
21. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 p.37.
22. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 p.12.
23. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.12 and 23-24.
24. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.13-14 and 23-24.
25. TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2018 pp.13-14 and 23.
26. TEQSA Annual Report 2017-18 pp.32-33.