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 April until 30 June 2020. 

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

Below are extensions from the Smoothing Project:

September 2023: This Good Practice Note is being reviewed to reflect changes in good practice, TEQSA’s updated processes and language to support providers to better understand, prevent, identify and respond to sexual harm. TEQSA began consultation with students, providers and other stakeholders in July 2023 about revising this document. Please contact PolicyandResearch@teqsa.gov.au if you have any questions about this review.

The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be made available on request.

This communiqué provides a definition of English waivers that TEQSA will apply for the purposes of its regulatory activities. This document aims to provide a common understanding of TEQSA’s use of the definition. Providers are encouraged to apply this definition as part of their interactions with TEQSA. 

What is an English waiver?

For TEQSA’s purposes, an English waiver is:

• Where a student does not meet the higher education provider’s documented English proficiency requirements for course admission, but regardless is admitted based on the student’s life experience or other circumstances.

‘Life experience’ and ‘circumstances’ could mean professional accreditation, relevant work experience, citizenship or other factors deemed sufficient for an English waiver to be granted by the decision-maker nominated in the provider’s policy (e.g. Dean, Head of Academic Unit, Deputy Vice Chancellor) or Academic Board. 
English waivers are usually case-by-case admissions decisions that take place outside the provider’s documented English requirements in its admissions policy or course requirements. However, some providers may explicitly spell out the conditions for an ‘English waiver’ within their admission policies or course requirements. 

Scenario A: To be eligible to enter a Commerce degree, the provider requires, as part of its document requirements, a minimum score of 6.5 for IELTS (Academic) with no individual band less than 6.0, or citizenship of an approved English-speaking country.

Example: Student A, a Russian citizen, achieved an overall IELTS score of 6.5 but had some individual bands less than 6.0. The student had one year of work experience as an intern at a London public relations company and had stayed in the United Kingdom for three years. These factors do not meet the provider’s documented English requirements. However, the Head of Academic Unit considered these factors and granted Student A entry. This decision was documented internally as required by the provider’s policy. TEQSA considers this to be an English waiver.

What is not an English waiver?

Where a student is admitted based on having met the provider’s minimum English proficiency requirements outlined within the provider’s statutes and regulations or admissions information and policy, these decisions are not considered to be English waivers. 

Such alternative requirements may include forms of English testing such as TOEFL¹, Pearson, Cambridge, or other forms of demonstrating proficiency such as ELICOS², English language bridging programs, prior English qualifications, other senior secondary qualifications, and the provider’s own English entrance exams. 

For TEQSA’s purposes, criteria that do not require English testing (such as citizenship or prior completed study in an English-speaking country) are not considered to be waivers if they are part of the provider’s documented English proficiency requirements. In this instance, the provider has transparently documented the types of non-testing criteria that are considered to provide sufficient evidence regarding a student’s level of English proficiency.

Scenario B: The provider’s website stipulates that students can demonstrate that they meet the English language requirements if they have lived and worked in an English speaking country for at least five years.

Example: Student B, a citizen of France, has lived and worked in the United States for ten years and provided utility bills and supporting statements from employers as evidence. The provider granted Student B admission. TEQSA does not regard this to constitute an English waiver.

Scenario C: The provider has a published list of approved secondary qualifications that it considers to meet the English language proficiency requirements. This includes the STPM  examination in Malaysia with a minimum B grade or higher.

Example: Student C achieved a B+ grade in the STPM examination and was granted entry on this basis. TEQSA does not regard this to constitute an English waiver.

Note

1. TEQSA’s definition of English waivers should not be conflated with ‘Other Forms of Testing which Satisfies the Institution’ or exemptions within PRISMS³ reporting. The English language requirements or English waivers to obtain admission to a higher education course are different from the English language test evidence or exemptions under the Migrations Regulations 1994, which applies to student visa applications⁴.
2. Most providers allow for waivers within their statutes and regulations and/or admissions policies. These vary from broad provisions granting a decision-maker or Academic Board the authority to waive the admissions requirements, to detailed conditions for students to be granted waivers. 
3. Where English waivers are granted, these decisions and the associated reasons are expected to be documented by the provider.

Endnotes

1. Test of English as a Foreign Language.
2. English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students.
3. Provider Registration and International Student Management System.
4. Migration (IMMI 18/015: English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visa) Instrument 2018 establishes the current English language tests, minimum scores and evidence exemptions for student visa applications. 

This toolkit has been developed to share Australia’s lessons with our colleagues in quality assurance agencies in the global fight against contract cheating and other threats to academic integrity. It applies the principles of quality assurance to creating strong frameworks that support academic integrity.

It includes good practice advice around a range of topics including academic integrity frameworks, contract cheating and supporting and sustaining cultures of academic integrity.

The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be made available on request.

Purpose

This document provides guidance to providers on selecting a suitable independent expert to conduct a review or seek expert advice as part of their internal quality assurance processes. 

Scope

This document provides guidance on:

• considerations for selecting a suitable independent expert
• factors for consideration relating to expertise
• factors for consideration relating to independence.

Considerations for selecting a suitable independent expert

1. The provider should consider the scope/terms of reference of the proposed review and tailor their requirements for a suitable independent expert accordingly. 
2. The provider should have regard to the factors for consideration (expertise and independence) set out in this document when selecting a suitable independent expert. However, TEQSA recognises that providers may have additional requirements they wish to consider. 
3. Selecting a suitable expert should be informed by:
   
   1. The type of the review – for example, an institutional review of the effectiveness of the governing body and academic governance processes (governance review); a comprehensive review of a course of study (course review); ELICOS/ESOS review; specialised/issue-specific expert advice; the mode of course delivery.
   2. The complexity of the review – for example, the scope/terms of reference for the review, the provider’s individual context (size, complexity of structure and operations).
4. The provider should exercise due diligence prior to engaging the expert to ensure that the expert:
   
   1. is a fit and proper person to provide expert advisory services to the provider, having regard to the individual’s character, competence and conduct
   2. does not have actual or perceived conflict/s of interest, or where conflict/s of interest do exist, that these are capable of being effectively managed
   3. has appropriate qualifications and experience to undertake the review consistent having regard to the type and complexity of the review. 
5. The engagement of the expert should be transparent and documented.
6. The provider should keep a record of the documents to support the selection of the expert – this may include a current resume, letter of endorsement from their current employer, statement of capability, declaration of independence/conflict of interest declaration and a certified copy of the expert’s relevant qualifications.

Factors relating to expertise

7. Factors that should be taken into consideration (but not be limited to) include the following:
   
   1. Whether the expert is suitably or appropriately qualified and/or experienced to conduct the review. This could be in the form of their academic qualifications and/or relevant (and comparable) professional experience. 
   2. Professional expertise or experience that is relevant and proportionate to the type and complexity of the review, for example, that they have acquired the level of knowledge or expertise to fulfil the requirements of the type and complexity of the review.
   3. The necessary knowledge of contemporary developments in the discipline or field, which is informed by continuing scholarship or research or advances in practice, and the currency of qualifications and experience. 
8. The expertise an expert is required to possess may include the ability to:
   
   1. address institutional management and institutional quality assurance (for a governance review)
   2. address the development or application of learning outcomes; and the application of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (for a course review)
   3. apply specialist knowledge (eg for ESOS/ELICOS or other specialised reviews).

Factors relating to independence

9. An independent expert in this context is a person who is independent from the provider and does not have (or intend to have) any material or significant dealings with the provider (or an associated entity) that could interfere with the exercise of independent judgement.  
10. There may be particular doubts about a person’s independence to provide independent expert advice if that person:
    
    1. has had an employment relationship with the provider within the last three years (other than in the course of engagement as an independent expert and related matters)
    2. has had a business relationship or other material contractual relationship with the provider within the last three years (other than in the course of engagement as an independent expert)
    3. has a direct or indirect material financial interest with the provider
    4. is involved in the day-to-day management functions of the provider and or is allied with the interests of management
    5. is not sufficiently impartial and disconnected from provider’s operations, such that they are in position to hold management to account and act in the organisation’s best interests
    6. has a material personal interest (i.e. stands to gain, benefit or suffer a loss) in the outcome of a review
    7. has an interest, position, association or relationship that might influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their capacity to exercise independent judgement.

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework, as amended from time to time. 

What does Credit and Recognition of Prior Learning encompass?

The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (Threshold Standards) and the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) set out requirements for recognition of prior learning (RPL) and granting credit in the higher education sector.

The primary obligations are found in section 1.2 of the Threshold Standards.

Credit is a recognition of equivalence in content and learning outcomes between different types of learning and/or qualifications. Credit can reduce the amount of learning required to achieve a qualification.

Credit may be granted through credit transfer, articulation, RPL or advanced standing.

For the purposes of this Guidance Note, credit is interpreted broadly to include:

• specified and unspecified credit
• exemptions
• advanced standing
• credit transfers
• opportunities for substitute learning.

Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is an assessment of an individual’s prior learning to determine whether credit will be granted. RPL includes formal, informal, and non-formal learning. The Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) Glossary of Terminology provides definitions on these forms of learning.

• Formal learning – learning that takes place through a structured program of learning that leads to full or partial achievement of an officially accredited course.
• Informal learning – learning gained through work, social, family, hobby or leisure activities and experiences. It is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support.
• Non-formal learning – learning that takes place through a structured program of learning but does not lead to an officially accredited qualification. 

A provider may grant credit arising from RPL in different ways, including:

• as part of a standing arrangement between providers to allow for credit to be transferred when a student completes particular units or courses
• on a case-by-case basis. 

A provider’s RPL policies and processes should be used to inform decisions about granting credit. These policies and processes should include considerations about:

• whether granting credit may disadvantage the student in achieving expected learning outcomes for the course of study or qualification
• maintaining the integrity of the qualification
• impact on variants of double awards (see Guidance Note on Joint and Dual Awards (in development)). 

Further, any process for approving an RPL request should be grounded in evidence and academic judgement about equivalence of learning.

What TEQSA will look for

The Threshold Standards places requirements on a provider’s processes and practices in granting credit and recognising prior learning. These include the following standards and criteria from the Threshold Standards:

The AQF Qualifications Pathway Policy

TEQSA will consider whether a grant of credit is consistent with the AQF’s Qualifications Pathway Policy (QPP).

Whilst many requirements under the QPP are similar to those under the Threshold Standards, the QPP adds additional expectations on providers in areas such as:

• 2.1.3 - The process for deciding whether to give credit into or credit towards AQF qualifications
• 2.1.5 – Requirement for credit to be granted based on individual negotiation between a student and provider, or as part of a formal negotiation between providers
• 2.1.9-2.1.10 – Considerations for negotiating credit agreements between providers.

Obligations applying to providers of education to overseas students in Australia

Where it applies to a provider, TEQSA considers the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act).

Sections of the National Code relevant to recognition of prior learning are:

• 2.1.1 – prior to acceptance of an overseas student’s enrolment in a course, a provider must make the student aware of any course credit applicable
• 2.3 – a provider must have a documented policy and process for RPL and granting credit. Further, a provider’s decisions to assess prior learning or grant credit must preserve the integrity of the award to which it applies
• 2.4 – if a provider grants credit to or recognises prior learning of an overseas student, the provider must give the student a written record of it to the student to accept and retain. The provider must also retain its own record of it for at least two years after the student ceases to be an accepted student
• 2.5 – if course credit or RPL result in the reduction of an overseas student’s course length, the provider must inform the student and ensure the confirmation of enrolment is issued for the reduced duration of the course. If the reduction of the course length occurs after the overseas student’s visa is granted, the change duration needs to be reported in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS)
• 8 – requirements on a provider in monitoring, reviewing, and improving student and course outcomes. 

Additionally, sections 21(2B), 21(2C) and 21(3) of the ESOS Act, requires providers to retain most student records for two years after the overseas student ceases to be an accepted student.

Identified issues

TEQSA has identified a range of issues which can indicate potential problems in a provider’s approach to granting RPL and credit. These include:

• either poor or no information being provided to students about how to apply for credit, or their eligibility for credit with a provider, which can impact on a student’s decision making when comparing providers
• a lack of timeliness in notifying students about whether credit will be granted, as well as a providers reasoning if it is not granted, can lead to a poor student experience
• poor quality record keeping of the reasons for refusing to grant credit to students, or granting credit, particularly when doing so departs from the provider’s policies. e.g., recording that credit was granted to a student only because they completed a unit with the same title at another institution
• poor quality records, about courses of study or individual units of study, may make it difficult for students to have their studies recognised through RPL at other providers. This also makes it difficult for providers to review and improve their own RPL policies and procedures
• evidence-based approaches are not used in granting credit because the policies are poorly written or applied. An example of this is granting credit in the interest of improving the recruitment of students, without consideration of whether doing so will disadvantage the students
• policies lacking clarity about who has appropriate expertise to make informed decisions about granting credit, or delegating decisions on granting credit to employees lacking the specialist knowledge may disadvantage students
• granting credit for short-form credentials, where the available information suggests learning outcomes are not achieved or sufficient. Providers should have consideration of factors such as length of course and intensity of the learning when determining the amount of credit to award
• when making changes to course design, not appropriately planning for and managing potential impacts on students who have been granted credit through RPL
• not adequately monitoring and reviewing RPL procedures and policies in granting credit. For example:
  • not monitoring cohorts of students granted credit to identify if they are succeeding in their courses of study
  • not recognising and addressing problems with current credit or RPL procedures resulting in high attrition or failure rates.

Related resources

• AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy
• AQF Glossary
• Guidance note: Admissions (coursework)
• Guidance note: Monitoring, Review, and Improvement (in development)
• Guidance note: Learning Outcomes and Assessment (in development)

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework, as amended from time to time. 

What is academic governance?

For the purpose of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (Threshold Standards), academic governance is a subset of the overall governance of a higher education provider (provider). Academic governance is concerned with the integrity and quality of the core higher education activities of teaching, student learning, research (including research training) and scholarship. It refers to the framework that regulates a provider’s academic decisions and quality assurance, incorporating policies, processes, definitions of roles, relationships, specifications of delegations, systems, strategies and resources that ensure academic quality and continuous improvement.¹

Academic governance that is robust and high functioning is a primary contributor to establishing a reputation as a quality provider through self-assurance of academic and research integrity, and delivering expected outcomes for students. Academic governance is also important to ensure a provider’s activities adhere to its institutional policy obligations, and that all qualifications awarded reflect the requirements within the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). At many providers, the responsibility of overseeing academic governance, rests with an academic board.

Academic governance and self-assurance

Academic governance plays a key role in a provider’s monitoring and management of academic risk (see guidance note Monitoring, Review and Improvement).

In identifying and responding to academic risk, self-assurance needs to be embedded in the business-as-usual operations of providers. This should have strong oversight by the primary body responsible for academic governance, typically an academic board. This is because effective self-assurance is key to protecting the integrity of a provider’s core higher education activities.

For strong self-assurance it is recommended that an academic board (or equivalent entity) hold responsibility for carrying out a cyclical program of self-assurance. This program should enable it to identify and respond to episodic and routine risks.

Further it is recommended that good record-keeping underpin a provider’s self-assurance. For regulatory assessments, auditable records arising from self-assurance can be used to demonstrate it is occurring and effective. Such records may include, but are not limited to: relevant evidence collected and reports developed, as well as records of the academic board’s (or equivalent's) discussions and decisions.

Relationship between corporate and academic governance

Corporate governance and academic governance bodies are expected to be separate bodies. However, important interdependencies exist between the corporate and academic functions. These should be captured in a provider’s governance framework and processes, to ensure coherency and meet the requirements of the Threshold Standards.

Recognising that structural arrangements to provide academic governance can vary across providers, generally the collective oversight of the academic community is exercised through an Academic Board, sometimes in cooperation with a variety of other structures (e.g. faculty boards, teaching and learning committees or course advisory committees). This Academic Board will typically share information with the corporate governing body to support its assurance activities.

In managing the relationship, corporate governing bodies must understand the real and perceived risks of compromising the independence and integrity of the academic governing body and take steps to avoid these risks. Actions that would create compliance risks include major shareholders or owners attending meetings of the Academic Board.

What TEQSA will look for

The Threshold Standards places requirements on a provider’s processes and practices regarding academic governance. These include the following standards and criteria from the Threshold Standards:
 

Academic governance arrangements should also have oversight and monitoring of other standards, including those relating to:

• 2.1 facilities and infrastructure
• 2.2 diversity and equity
• 3.3 learning resources and educational support
• 4.1 research, and
• 4.2 research training.  

The effectiveness of a provider’s academic governance also has an impact on assessments of applications for changes in provider categories (Part B1 – Criteria for Higher Education Provider Categories) and self-accrediting authority (Part B2 – Criteria for Seeking Authority for Self-Accreditation of Courses of Study), and for course accreditation.

When reviewing academic governance arrangements, TEQSA will determine whether a provider’s mechanisms for academic governance meet the requirements of the Threshold Standards. In so doing, TEQSA requires sufficient evidence about the provider’s academic governance arrangements and structures to demonstrate effective and systematic quality assurance, with expected student outcomes achieved. This may include evidence that demonstrates:

• there is sufficient academic capability to provide effective leadership and competent scrutiny and advice
• whether the structure of academic governance is consistent with the scope and scale of the provider’s operations and the level of academic activity involved (e.g. bachelor’s degree level vs. higher degree by research)
• links between academic and corporate governance. TEQSA will expect the provider to demonstrate that its governance system enables the corporate governing body to arrive at an informed and reliable view of the quality and outcomes of the provider’s higher education activities
• there are provisions to ensure crucial input to considerations of strategic and operational planning by all relevant boards and committees
• the adequacy of academic governance and other academic quality assurance systems in self-monitoring to ensure effective operation, referencing best practice on factors such as, but not limited to, risk management, effective delegations, continuous improvement plans and monitoring the effectiveness of its academic policy framework
• that students have an opportunity to participate in academic governance
• the level of institutional monitoring and review (Domain 5), which is a key feature of academic governance in support of a culture of continuous improvement (see the Monitoring, Review and Improvement Guidance Note).

Identified issues

In the absence of a robust and high functioning system of academic governance, it is difficult for a provider to:

• assure itself and TEQSA of the quality of its educational activities
• provide adequate oversight and support of academic scholarship activities
• provide institutional academic leadership to maintain expected outcomes for students and the reputation of the provider (e.g. through setting benchmarks, policy frameworks, scrutinising and approving courses of study, ensuring the appropriateness of academic grades, determining admission requirements, and adhering to professional accreditation standards)
• have effective monitoring, review, and improvement of course quality, institutional benchmarks, and quality assurance arrangements, resulting in limited or no improvement action
• adhere to an adequate policy framework, resulting in inconsistent expectations of both staff and students regarding academic quality
• ensure equivalency in student outcomes and the student experience
• make appropriate corporate decisions due to insufficient or ineffectual academic advice and/or a lack of awareness of academic issues and risks
• have vigilance and good judgement when monitoring academic and research integrity.

Related resources

• Guidance Note: Corporate Governance (under review)
• Guidance Note: Academic and Research Integrity (under development)
• Guidance Note: Course Design (under development)
• Guidance Note: Learning Resources and Educational Support (under development)
• Guidance Note: Learning Outcomes and Assessment (under development)
• Guidance Note: Student Grievances and Complaints (under development)
• Guidance Note: Monitoring, Review and Improvement (under development)
• Guidance Note: Research and Research Training

Notes

1. e.g. For the purposes of this guidance note, academic governance is in context of the requirement placed on registered higher education providers as determined by the TEQSA Act and other Commonwealth law, such as the Higher Education Standards Framework 2021, Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, and the Australian Qualifications Framework.