• Transnational education (TNE) toolkit

    Body

    TEQSA’s Transnational education (TNE) toolkit, authored by Dr Samantha Young, provides guidance to the sector on third-party offshore delivery of Australian higher education awards.

    A PDF version of the toolkit is available above.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type

    Documents

    tom.hewitt-mcmanus

  • Transnational education toolkit launched

    TEQSA’s Transnational education (TNE) toolkit, authored by Dr Samantha Young and launched at the 2022 TEQSA Conference, provides guidance to the sector on third-party offshore delivery of Australian higher education awards.

    Date
    Feature Image
    Last updated:

  • Contextual overview of the HES Framework 2021

    This overview summarises the intent of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework) and outlines key aspects of TEQSA's approach to regulation. The HES Framework replaced the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 for regulatory purposes on 1 July 2021.

    This overview is not part of the HES Framework and simply provides a contextual overview. Together with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the TEQSA Quality of Research Determination 2021 (to be finalised) and the TEQSA Fit and Proper Person Determination 2018, the HES Framework is the definitive set of requirements for Australian higher education providers. In seeking to interpret the Standards, providers should read the HES Framework in the first instance. 

    Context of the HES Framework

    As illustrated below, the HES Framework has been structured to align with the student experience or ‘student life cycle’ i.e. as they progress from prospective students through to the award of a qualification. The HES Framework is also grounded in the core characteristics of the provision of higher education. As such, the Standards are intended to be useful to higher education providers as a framework for internal monitoring of the quality of their higher education activities.

    The 'student lifecycle' of the HES Framework

    The Standards within Part A of the HES Framework encompass the matters that a higher education provider would ordinarily be expected to address in the course of understanding, monitoring and managing its higher education activities and any associated risks, and apply at all times. This is expected to make the various Standards easier to apply for the purposes of providers’ own internal monitoring, reporting and governance activities, as well as for TEQSA’s regulatory processes.

    As a result of their grounding in the nature of a provider’s mission and operations, it is expected that we will more readily be able to use internal reports and information produced during the normal course of a provider’s business, or published on provider websites, as evidence when assessing compliance with the Standards.

    In turn, this will see a reduction, over time, in any regulatory burden on higher education providers that might be attributable to our administration of the Standards.

    Additionally, the Standards: 

    • set out the requirements that a higher education provider must meet – and continue to meet – to be registered by TEQSA to operate in Australia as a provider of higher education. The Standards provide the basis for the regulation of registered higher education providers
    • ensure that the requirements for entry into the higher education sector are set sufficiently high to underpin and protect the quality and reputation of the sector as a whole
    • establish a baseline for operational quality and integrity from which all providers can continue to build excellence and diversity
    • serve other broader purposes including the provision of:
      • an articulation of the expectations for provision of higher education in Australia as:
        • a guide to the quality of educational experiences that students should expect
        • a reference for international comparisons 
        • a reference for other interested parties
    • a model framework which higher education providers can apply themselves for the internal monitoring, quality assurance and quality improvement of their higher education activities.

    Introduction to the HES Framework

    Regulatory Principles

    Our regulatory approach will continue to be guided by the provisions of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) as amended from time to time, including the objects (Section 3) and the three basic principles for regulation (Section 13):

    • the principle of regulatory necessity
    • the principle of reflecting risk, and
    • the principle of proportionate regulation.

    Form of the HES Framework

    The HES Framework consists of two parts:

    • Part A – Standards for Higher Education (which represent the minimum acceptable requirements for the provision of higher education in or from Australia)
    • Part B – Criteria for Higher Education Providers (which enable categorisation of different types of providers and whether a provider is responsible for self-accreditation of a course(s) of study it delivers). 

    This overview does not include commentary on Part B. Guidance on aspects of Part B can be found in the Application Guide for registration in any university category and in the Guidance Note on Scholarship.

    The first Domain (Student Participation and Attainment) covers the education-related experiences of students from admission through to attainment of certified qualification(s) (or part thereof, such as completion of units of study). The Standards for Student Participation and Attainment focus primarily on a course of study, but apply equally to the completion of units of study. 

    The remainder of the Domains focus on the actions taken by the higher education provider to achieve the educational outcomes expected for students. The second Domain (Learning Environment) focuses on the nature and quality of the learning environment provided, whether physical, on or off campus, virtual or blended. The Standards for Teaching and for Research and Research Training (Domains 3 and 4) focus on the applicable academic activities of the higher education provider that guide and facilitate student learning and, in the case of research and research training, contribute to new knowledge as well. 

    Domains 5 and 6 focus on the mechanisms that are established by the higher education provider to assure itself of the quality of the higher education it provides (Institutional Quality Assurance), and to maintain effective governance of its operations (both Academic and Corporate Governance). Domain 7 (Representation, Information and Information Management) encompasses the higher education provider’s representation of itself and its courses to prospective students and others, the provision of information to prospective and enrolled students to enable informed participation in their educational experience, and the information management systems that support the higher education provider’s higher education operations.

    The Standards in Part A do not seek to encompass all areas of a provider’s activities, such as societal contributions through community engagement. Nor do the Standards seek to directly address some aspects of the experience of students that are not proximate to the provider or realistically under the control of the provider, such as long-term career outcomes.

    Standards statements

    Each ‘Domain’ of the Standards is segmented into ‘Sections’ and these Sections in turn contain a number of ‘Standards statements’. These Standards statements are the actual ‘Standards’; the headings of the Domains and Sections are taxonomic only. 

    The Standards statements in each Section form a related set, although each Standards statement is a stand-alone statement. In some Standards statements the words ‘include’ or ‘including’ precede an elaboration of the Standards statement. The elaboration that follows ‘include’ or ‘including’ is an essential component of the Standards statement, but it does not preclude additional forms of elaboration being used by higher education providers if they choose to do so. 

    Threshold Standards

    For the purpose of defining the Threshold Standards under Section 58 of the TEQSA Act, the applicable Standards are those that are defined in the HES Framework.

    Application of the Standards for internal purposes by higher education providers

    The Standards set out in Part A of the HES Framework are grounded in the core characteristics of the provision of higher education. As a consequence of this foundation, the Standards are intended to be useful to higher education providers as a framework for internal monitoring of the quality of their higher education activities. The Standards encompass the matters that a higher education provider would ordinarily be expected to address in the course of directing and monitoring its higher education activities and managing any associated risks. Each Standards statement addresses an underlying area of risk(s) to be managed. This may be a risk to the sustainability and viability of the provider, to the quality of education provided, to the experiences of students in relation to a higher education provider, to the quality of learning outcomes on graduation, to the reputation of higher education in Australia or a combination of these.

    From the standpoint of internal use by higher education providers, the Standards focus on aspects of a higher education provider’s operations in different but inter-related ways. Domain 1 (Student Participation and Attainment) focuses primarily on the educational experience for students, while Domains 2 to 4 (Learning Environment, Teaching, Research and Research Training) focus on the academic activities of the provider and the environments in which they occur. Together, Domains 2 to 4 address a variety of risks to the quality of higher education and the experiences of students in specific ways.

    Domains 5 and 6 (Institutional Quality Assurance, and Governance and Accountability) are more overarching in nature and draw in part on the other more specific Domains in the Threshold Standards. These Domains encompass the ways in which a higher education provider and its governing and academic bodies would ordinarily maintain oversight of its higher education operations and be able to assure itself, in the normal course of its business and governance activities, that the requirements of the Standards for Higher Education are being met. 

    As a consequence of their overarching focus, the Domains of Governance and Accountability and Institutional Quality Assurance are seen to be the primary locus for internal monitoring of a higher education provider’s activities. Any concerns identified by a higher education provider in seeking to meet the Standards for Institutional Quality Assurance and Governance and Accountability would be expected to cause deeper examination of their compliance with the Standards for Higher Education overall, guided by the risks that have been identified. 

    Applicability of the Standards to particular higher education providers or categories of higher education provider 

    Under the TEQSA Act, it is an obligation of registration that all registered higher education providers meet and continue to meet the Standards of the HES Framework. The Standards are applicable to all registered higher education providers where the provider engages in the activities encompassed by the Standards, irrespective of the category of provider. The Standards for Higher Education (Part A) also cover all modes of participation and delivery, sites of delivery and all categories of students. 

    Some parts of the Standards for Higher Education will not apply to particular higher education providers that do not engage in specific activities. For example, Standards related to delivery arrangements between a registered higher education provider and other parties will not be applicable where such arrangements do not exist. Similarly, the Research Standards are not applicable to higher education providers that do not undertake research. However, if research training is conducted, the Standards for Research and for Research Training are both applicable. 

    Except where particular higher education providers do not engage in all of the higher education activities encompassed by the Standards, such as not undertaking research training, all registered providers are required by the TEQSA Act to meet the Standards for Higher Education in their entirety. We will need to be satisfied that this is the case. The methods used to assure that providers are meeting the Standards will vary from case to case, according to risk. We will provide advice about our approach periodically, directly to providers and through our website.

    Application of the Standards to higher education providers in different stages of development

    The Standards for Higher Education have been drafted to represent the characteristics of provision of higher education by a higher education provider that is an established ‘going concern’. Such a provider would, for example, already have had several cohorts of students graduate from its course(s) of study. Review and improvement activities would also be expected to have been established as part of the provider’s own internal oversight and quality assurance of its higher education operations. Review activities would include mechanisms to provide evidence of achievement of specified expected learning outcomes and student success, and processes for external referencing against other higher education providers or other courses of study.

    To the extent that a higher education provider has not yet reached this level of operational maturity, the provider will need to demonstrate to us that its progress to date in meeting the Standards and its capacity and timetable for meeting the Standards in the future are consistent with the provider’s present stage of development. Some Standards may not be fully applicable at an early stage of a provider’s development, especially when first applying for registration as a higher education provider. For example, a provider launching its first higher education course would be expected to have all arrangements in place for the course to meet the Standards for delivery, but not be expected to have surveyed its students or implemented a course review cycle. However, it should have made provision for such a cycle of feedback and monitoring in its framework of policies procedures and planned practices.

    We will apply the HES Framework taking account of an individual provider’s stage of development. 

    Applicants who have never been registered as a higher education provider are advised to consider carefully beforehand whether they are ready to apply. In particular, they should not consider applying unless they meet the minimum requirements for potential higher education providers, outlined on our Before applying to become a higher education provider. The full set of evidence required at the point of application is outlined in the Application Guides for prospective higher education providers. If an applicant does not provide the full set of evidence required for us to conduct an assessment, we may decide that the application is invalid, and may not proceed to a substantive assessment.

    When an established provider applies for renewal of its registration, or for course accreditation or renewal of course accreditation, we will use a differentiated model of assessment (known as the ‘core+’ model), as explained in the Application Guides for registered higher education providers. The breadth and depth of assessment will be varied on a case-by-case basis. All applicants will be required to submit minimum evidence relating to a set of core Standards. Some providers will be asked to submit evidence against other selected Standards, with reference to risk and regulatory track record.

    Applications of the different types of Standards

    Some of the Standards are more overarching in nature. For example, the Standards relating to governance and internal quality assurance pertain to the governing body’s ability to oversee compliance with all of the other Standards. There is also interdependency among the Standards; for example the Standards on quality assurance ensure the provision of information to support decision making as required by the governance Standards. The different types of Standards in the HES Framework present opportunities for us to ascertain the extent of a provider’s compliance with the Standards in different ways. For example, the Standards in Domain 7 require considerable information to be publicly accessible. As a result, we may be able to form a prima facie view about many of a provider’s operations on the basis of this publicly accessible material without asking for further information.

    Similarly, in an established provider, the internal mechanisms for governance, accountability and quality assurance encompassed by Domains 5 and 6 should produce significant evidence of compliance with the overall Standards in the ordinary course of managing and monitoring the provider’s affairs. The evidence produced in meeting the overarching Standards of Domains 5 and 6 as part of internal monitoring offers significant opportunities for TEQSA (and for the higher education provider) to gain confidence in the provider’s operations. The more we can be confident that an established provider is effectively reviewing its own operations and taking actions to correct variations in quality and implement improvements, the less need we will have to undertake further investigation. We can confine investigations to undertaking a secondary review of the outputs of the provider’s own reviews, where these are comprehensive and reliable, and externally validated. 

    The Standards also differ in the types of evidence required to demonstrate that they have been met. In some cases, the evidence required will be straightforward (e.g. a state of affairs exists or it does not) while in other cases judgment will be required (e.g. the appropriateness of a set of learning outcomes). In the case of judgments, we may refer to authoritative views put by the provider and/or draw on the opinions of others e.g. an external expert, especially where academic judgment is required. 

    Appropriateness and effectiveness of a provider’s approaches

    Where Standards statements specify the existence of a policy and/or procedure, it is implied that such a policy or procedure should be fit for its intended purpose and effective in its implementation. This avoids multiple repetitious references to appropriateness and effectiveness of individual policies/procedures throughout the Standards. However, the intent of fitness for and achievement of an intended purpose remains, whether or not it is stated explicitly, and we will want to see relevant evidence that a provider’s approaches not only exist but are appropriate to their purpose and effective in achieving that purpose. For example, if a provider uses course advisory committees to gather external input into course design, we will want to see that such external advice is indeed gathered and considered in the design of the course. Similarly, if a review is undertaken of an aspect of a provider’s operations, e.g. of a course of study, we will expect to see the findings of the review considered and actions arising in response.

    References to peer review in Standards

    Various Standards in the HES Framework contemplate external referencing, benchmarking and other forms of external review, including peer review. Where peer review is expressed or implied, it is intended as peer review initiated by the provider for internal quality assurance purposes, rather than peer review processes that may be initiated or conducted by TEQSA or another external body, such as a professional accrediting body. External review of a course does not remove the need for providers to undertake their own rigorous review with external input.

    Reference points

    For some Sections of the Standards, we have suggested ‘Reference points’ in this overview. Reference points are significant codes or frameworks that may be helpful to higher education providers in considering how particular Standards may be met or demonstrated. The items listed as Reference points are generally developed and maintained by peak national bodies and agencies. Use of Reference points by higher education providers is not mandatory; neither the Standards nor TEQSA require a provider to consult the Reference points or to comply with practices advocated within the Reference points in general (however some requirements may otherwise be mandatory, within for example the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) or the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (The National Code).

    However, in recommending the Reference points, we believe they contain material that is likely to benefit all providers in considering how they might address related Standards. Reference points are intended to augment other resources developed for providers such as our guidance notes. Various materials that may be suitable as Reference points may also be available to individual providers by virtue of their membership of professional bodies or the like. Reference points are only recommended if they are available in the public domain.

    Meaning of ‘staff’

    Some of the Standards refer to ‘staff’. For the purpose of regulation, TEQSA takes ‘staff’ to mean people carrying out roles that are relevant to the meaning of the Standard, even if the people concerned are not actually an employee of the provider e.g. an honorary sessional teacher, or workplace supervisors with responsibilities to the provider.

    Last updated:

  • Raising a complaint or concern - online form

    webform instance

    Check the National Register for higher education providers regulated by TEQSA.

    What is your relationship to the higher education provider?

    Your contact details

    Providing your name and contact details is optional. 

    You may choose to remain anonymous. Please note that we determine how to proceed with concerns based on the quality of the information we have available. If you remain anonymous, we cannot contact you if we need more information. 

    Details of your concern

    We refer to complaints or allegations of non-compliance we receive about providers as concerns.

    TEQSA can only take action on concerns that relate to our regulatory responsibility.

    Read more about what TEQSA can take action on and can’t take action on.

    If there is an immediate personal threat or an individual has been a victim of harm, you should first contact the police. You may then follow this process to raise a concern with TEQSA.

    Provide as much detail as possible. Useful information includes the nature of your concern and potential consequences; relevant events, dates, and names of people involved; documents, evidence and communications that relate to your concern.
    Do you wish to upload any files that relate to your concern?
    This may include documents, evidence and communications that relate to your concern; copies of relevant policies or procedures; evidence of the outcome of any complaint and appeal processes.
    If you experience technical issues uploading files, you may also email them to concerns@teqsa.gov.au
    Files may take about one minute to upload.
    Maximum 3 files.
    10 MB limit.
    Allowed types: gif, jpg, png, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, xls, xlsx, pdf.
    30 MB limit per form.
    Have you raised the concern with the provider?
    Please refer to our Before you raise a concern page.
    If you have accessed the higher education provider’s formal complaints handling process, provide detail on the status and outcome.
    Have you sought an independent, third party review?
    If you have opted for an independent, third party review, provide detail, including the name of the third party, the status and outcome.
    For all other instances, provide detail on what steps you have taken to resolve your concern.
    Please refer to our Before you raise a concern page.

    Consent to disclose to another government agency (where applicable)

    Referring your concern to another agency will involve disclosing your personal information to that agency. By agreeing to TEQSA referring your concern to another agency, you consent to TEQSA disclosing the personal information in this form to that agency. If you do not agree to TEQSA referring your concern to another agency, TEQSA will not be able to send your information to another agency best placed to consider it.

    Do you consent to TEQSA referring your concern to another agency (where applicable)?
    Consent to disclose to the higher education provider (where applicable)

    Your information may be disclosed to the higher education provider in order to investigate the subject of your concern. Part G of TEQSA’s Complete APP Privacy Policy and Privacy Management Plan details how TEQSA deals with the personal information we receive in relation to concerns. If you do not consent to TEQSA disclosing your personal information to the higher education provider, TEQSA may not be able to investigate the subject of your concern.
    Do you consent to TEQSA disclosing your personal information to the higher education provider?
    Are you 18 years of age or over?
    The material in this form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

  • Blocked website complaint or concerns form

    Answers are required for all questions marked with an asterisk (*)

    webform instance
    What is your relationship with this website?
    Why are you complaining about the blocked access?
    Please attach any supporting information such as photos, screenshots, SMS messages or emails.
    Maximum 3 files.
    10 MB limit.
    Allowed types: gif, jpg, png, pdf, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, xls, xlsx.
    Contact options
    Please provide your name and contact details (email address and/or mobile number)

    Privacy information and warning

    We can only collect personal information if it is directly related to what we do, or when permitted or required by law. We may want to contact you for more information about your complaint or ask for help with our review into whether blocking this website was appropriate.

    By providing your personal information you are consenting to TEQSA contacting you with further questions throughout our investigation.

    TEQSA may use any information it receives from any person who contacts it about the disruption of access to an online location in taking enforcement action (including in the pursuit of civil penalty or criminal penalty proceedings pursuant to sections 114A and 114B of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011), either independently or in conjunction with other agencies.

  • TEQSA service charter

    Documents

    Body

    This service charter sets out our commitment to everyone who deals with us. This includes higher education providers, current and prospective students at Australian higher education providers, members of the public, employers, government agencies, experts and peak bodies with responsibility for representing the sector we regulate.

    This service charter acknowledges these different relationships, whilst committing to a number of principles for responsive service.

    What you can expect from us – our principles of quality service

    Everyone who contacts us can expect professional, honest and high-quality service, in accordance with this service charter. When dealing with TEQSA, you can expect that we will:

    • offer prompt, open, honest and helpful service
    • treat you with courtesy and respect
    • do the best we can to help resolve your issue, or refer you to an agency that can
    • be responsive to the needs of people from culturally diverse backgrounds
    • be responsive to the needs of people with a disability or special needs
    • handle your complaint professionally and as quickly as possible
    • identify ourselves
    • issue correspondence with contact details
    • protect your personal information according to the law.

    If your query is outside the scope of our responsibilities, we will refer you to the responsible organisation.

    Australian Public Service Values

    In our dealings with you, we will be professional and understanding. Our staff individually and collectively are committed to upholding the Australian Public Service Values:

    • Impartial
    • Committed to service
    • Accountable
    • Respectful
    • Ethical.

    Read more about the Australian Public Service Values on the Australian Public Service Commission website.

    Commitments under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011

    TEQSA has statutory obligations for the time that we take to make, and notify parties of, regulatory decisions about applications for registration and course accreditation. These requirements are set out in the TEQSA Act. You can view the TEQSA Act from the Federal Register of Legislation. These obligations are also explained on our Application forms and support page.

    The National Register of Higher Education Providers is the authoritative source of information on the status of regulated higher education providers in Australia. The National Register is updated constantly with our regulatory decisions and may be searched by higher education provider name, or course name.

    The National Register Guidelines outline the provider and course information that must be made available, including providers whose registration has been cancelled or withdrawn by TEQSA, or expired.

    We also report on our performance in meeting these requirements in our annual report, which can be accessed from our corporate plan and performance reporting page.

    How we will ensure and measure quality service

    We will identify, document and measure our service targets (see table below). Additionally, we will report on whether we are meeting targets, and if TEQSA practices are having a positive effect on stakeholders’ perception and experience.

    TEQSA strives for continual improvement, and when service standards are not being met we will actively implement strategies to prevent delays and increase efficiencies. TEQSA will:

    • ask stakeholders about their experience, using tools such as the annual stakeholder survey
    • review and analyse the results of surveys, stakeholder complaints data, sector feedback and make service delivery changes where necessary
    • expect managers to quality assure the work of their teams including engagement with providers and implement continual improvement strategies.

    Our commitment to listening to feedback, and continuous improvement

    We welcome your feedback on the effectiveness of this service charter and the service we provide. Feedback is welcome via enquiries@teqsa.gov.au.

    We are committed to ensuring our staff members are skilled and client-focused.

    We will monitor your feedback as a measure of our compliance with the standards set out in this service charter and of the effectiveness of the service charter itself.

    We will report on our performance in our annual report which can be accessed from our corporate plan and performance reporting page.

    TEQSA Stakeholder Service Targets

    Action Target
    General email sent to enquiries@teqsa.gov.au 80 per cent responded to in five business days and progressed for further action as required
    Telephone calls to enquiries 80 per cent answered on the spot
    Web form enquiries submitted to teqsa.gov.au/contact-us 80 per cent responded to in five business days
    Complaints about TEQSA Acknowledge response to complaint and provide advice about a substantive response within two business days

     

    Your responsibilities

    To help us provide you with a high level of service we ask that you:

    • treat our staff with courtesy and respect
    • give us accurate and complete information
    • allow us sufficient time to respond to your requests
    • contact us if you believe we have made an error or acted inappropriately, and wish to make a complaint.

    If you work for a current higher education, ELICOS or Foundation Program provider

    Your institution will be registered by TEQSA as a provider of:

    If your institution delivers higher education, it will be registered on the National Register of Higher Education Providers under the TEQSA Act.

    If your institution delivers courses of study to overseas students, it will be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) under the ESOS Act.

    As part of your relationship with TEQSA, it is likely that you will discuss matters regarding regulatory requirements with us, including:

    • the assessment of your institution’s application for renewal of registration under the TEQSA or ESOS Acts
    • the assessment of applications for course accreditation and renewal of course accreditation
    • material change notifications of matters that could impact on your institution’s capacity to continue to comply with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021
    • requests for information for regulatory compliance and quality assessment purposes
    • your institution’s ongoing compliance with both the TEQSA and/or ESOS Acts.

    If you are a prospective higher education, ELICOS or Foundation Program provider

    If your institution is seeking to become a higher education provider, offer ELICOS or Foundation Program courses to overseas students, please view the Providers section of our website for more information about the registration and accreditation processes.

    Overseas providers interested in delivering higher education in Australia can find our more information from our FAQs page.

    As part of your relationship with TEQSA, it is likely that you will discuss matters regarding regulatory requirements with us, including:

    • the assessment of your institution’s application for registration under the TEQSA or ESOS Acts
    • the assessment of applications for course accreditation.

    Dedicated point of contact for all registered higher education providers

    All registered higher education providers are assigned a contact person who is responsible for regulatory matters. Any regulatory queries should be directed to your contact person, unless you have been informed otherwise.

    You can expect that, in addition to our general principles of good service, your contact person will:

    • have a good understanding of the operations of your institution
    • seek to resolve your issues as quickly as possible, or explain why this may take more time.

    In return, we ask that you:

    • have your documentation or reference numbers ready when you contact us
    • fulfil your regulatory, financial and other obligations to TEQSA within stipulated timeframes.

    In order to answer your query accurately and fully, we may need to discuss our timeframe for responding to you. In doing this we will always seek to be fair and reasonable.

    If you have a general enquiry relating to the regulation of higher education providers, you may find the information you need is on our website.

    If you are uncertain who your contact is, you can email our enquiry inbox at enquiries@teqsa.gov.au for your email to be directed to your assigned contact.

    For students and prospective students

    If you have a general enquiry about the regulation or quality assurance of Australian higher education, you might find the information you need on our website. Our website has information about TEQSA and the legislation that we administer. It also has a specific section for students, which has information about how our work protects students undertaking, or proposing to undertake Australian higher education. Find out more from the Students section of our website.

    If you cannot find the information you need on our website, you can email enquiries@teqsa.gov.au. We may need to discuss our response date with you depending on the complexity of your query. In doing this we will always seek to be fair and reasonable.

    Your right to information, review and appeal

    TEQSA’s Public Disclosure Policy sets out our approach to sharing information about our regulatory activities. This policy deals with statements made to the public, not to individuals (for individuals, see page 1).

    The Information Publication Scheme calls for us to publish a range of information about what we do and how it is done. Our Information Publication Scheme page allows you to access the information we are required to publish under the scheme.

    You also have the right to request access to documents we hold under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Visit our Freedom of information and disclosure log page for more information about making a request under the FOI Act and to access details of previously released documents.

    When TEQSA makes certain regulatory decisions, higher education providers will be given reasons, which outline how this decision was reached. They are able to request a review of certain regulatory decisions in accordance with Part 10 of the TEQSA Act or Part 7A of the ESOS Act. More information, including the types of decisions, which can be reviewed, is available from our Review of TEQSA decisions page.

    Complaints about higher education, ELICOS or Foundation Program providers

    We accept complaints about Australian higher education providers and other entities we regulate (providers of Foundation Programs, ELICOS providers and ESOS registered providers) to gather information that assists us in the regulation and quality assurance of the sector.

    However, we can only accept certain types of complaints. Further details on the types of complaints we can accept is available from the Complaints section of our website.

    If you have a specific concern or complaint about our service, please let us know so that we can address the issue. A policy about our approach to managing complaints about TEQSA’s practices and services, or about the actions of a TEQSA employee or contractor can be found on our website. You can send your complaint to us by emailing review@teqsa.gov.au, or write to us at:

    Legal Group
    TEQSA
    GPO Box 1672
    MELBOURNE VIC 3001

    If you are not satisfied with our response or the way that your complaint has been handled, you may wish to contact the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

    Due to confidentiality obligations in the TEQSA Act, we are limited in what information we can share about regulatory action we may take as a result of your complaint. We will, however, publish regulatory decisions on the National Register of Higher Education Providers.

    How to contact TEQSA and provide feedback

    If you would like to offer feedback – positive, negative or otherwise - on our service, please email enquiries@teqsa.gov.au.

    Or, you can contact us by:

    • completing our online enquiry form
    • mailing your correspondence to TEQSA Enquiries, GPO Box 1672, Melbourne VIC 3001
    • calling 1300 739 585 between 9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday.

    For more information, visit our Contact us page.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type

  • Guidance note: Delivery with other parties

    Body

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

    What does delivery with others parties encompass?

    The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (Threshold Standards) places obligations on registered higher education providers (providers) about arrangements for ‘delivery with other parties’. The primary obligations are found in Section 5.4 of the Threshold Standards.

    ‘Delivery with other parties’ encompasses arrangements between a provider and another entity (in Australia or overseas), for the delivery of a course of study (a course) or parts of it, that leads to the award of a regulated higher education qualification (higher education qualification).

    The scope of these arrangements is typically contained in legal contractual relationships between the parties, which set out the responsibilities of each party and their functions. This may include the processes and systems the other party may implement to ensure it complies with the providers policies and systems. 

    Common examples of delivery with other parties include:

    • work-integrated learning (see TEQSA’s guidance note for more details)
    • in-country language programs
    • onshore and offshore arrangements with other providers to deliver higher education
    • short-term programs allowing students to complete units of a course with another provider, either domestically or overseas (study tours and exchanges)
    • students completing part of their course at one provider, and the remainder at another (twinning arrangements)
    • an umbrella entity that is overseeing two or more providers covering an aspect of delivery for the overseen providers.

    In having arrangements to deliver a course with other parties, the Threshold Standards require providers to remain responsible and accountable in all aspects of course delivery and support. These aspects include corporate monitoring and ensuring student wellbeing and safety.

    In the event where a provider is unable to assure itself of a third parties compliance with relevant regulatory frameworks, or is in breach of agreed contractual agreements and benchmarks, a provider will need to take action to protect the interests of students. This may involve ending the relationship with the other party.

    Where a provider delivers a course with an overseas party, TEQSA may apply greater focus in ensuring compliance is effectively implemented by the higher education provider. This is because these arrangements can create heightened risk of non-compliance in areas such as student support services, staffing, student safety and wellbeing, identifying students at risk and freedom of speech. TEQSA also expects providers to ensure students to have equivalent opportunities for progression and success, regardless of delivery arrangements or background.

    This guidance note does not focus on Work Integrated Learning (WIL), although elements of this will be dealt with in passing. For more detailed information on WIL please see its associated guidance note. 

    What TEQSA will look for

    TEQSA considers the Threshold Standards in the context of delivery with other parties, among which most notably are: 

    Part A: Standards for higher education providers

    Key considerations

    1.3.6 Orientation and progression
    • all students have equivalent access to transition into and progression through, their course of study.

    1.5 Qualifications and certification
    • certification documentation acknowledges the contribution of the third party where appropriate.
    3.2 Staffing
    • staff, including those at the other party, have appropriate training, level of qualifications and knowledge of contemporary developments in a field or discipline to meet expected student learning outcomes
    • teaching staff, including those at the other party, who do not fully meet the standard for teaching or supervision (i.e. experienced practitioners) are overseen by staff who meet standard 3.2.3
    • staff, including those at the other party, are accessible to students seeking individual assistance with their studies.
    3.3 Learning resources and educational support
    • learning materials are accessible for students if specified or recommended for a course of study
    • students are able to access learning resources regardless of their mode of study, learning needs or whether the education is delivered with other parties
    5.1.2-3 Course approval and accreditation
    • processes for academic governance are applied consistently to all courses
    • resources required to deliver courses are available.

    5.2 Wellbeing and safety
    • students are provided with the following in support of their wellbeing and safety:
      • a safe environment to participate in higher education
      • a grievance and complaints process that is supplied consistently, fairly and without reprisal
      • support services tailored to the needs of their cohort.
    5.2.4 Academic and research integrity
    • academic and research integrity and accountability are maintained in delivery arrangements with other parties.
    5.3 Monitoring, review and improvement
    • monitoring and review of student trend data, specifically considers and compares outcomes across cohorts and third-party activities.
    5.4 Delivery with other parties
    • delivery with other parties is quality assured by the provider, including assuring quality of supervision and student experiences
    • in delivering a course with another party, the provider remains accountable for the course of study and its ongoing compliance with the Threshold Standards. 
    6.2a, h-i Corporate monitoring and accountability
    • the corporate governing body can assure itself that it is operating effectively and sustainably. This includes assuring itself that the provider:
      • is operating consistently with the legislation under which the provider is established, recognised, or incorporated (which may impose limits on whether a provider can deliver courses in a foreign jurisdiction, even if through another party)
      • has appropriate tuition safeguards plans for business continuity in the event a course cannot be fully delivered
      • is awarding qualifications legitimately.
    7.1 Representation
    • information supplied by the provider or other parties about the provider’s educational offerings, experiences and charges are accurate and not misleading. 
    7.2 Information for prospective and current students
    • for prospective and current students information should should be accessible and accurate about:
      • arrangements with other parties, including when and where courses will be delivered under these arrangements
      • educational offerings, experiences, and relevant policies including those applying to courses delivered with other parties.
    7.3.3 Information management
    • information systems and records are maintained, and kept secure and confidential.

     

    The TEQSA Act

    TEQSA also considers obligations arising from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act). The most relevant sections about delivery with other parties are:

    • Section 26 which applies to providers offering or conferring a higher education award for courses completed in part or wholly with other parties. Where it applies, this section requires a provider to ensure the other party or parties, in delivering the course, are compliant with the Threshold Standards.
    • Section 29 which requires a provider to notify TEQSA of any material changes which may significantly affect the provider’s ability to comply with the Threshold Standards. An agreement to deliver a course with other parties presents specific risks to compliance. Once a provider has entered an agreement with another party to deliver a course, we expect the provider to notify TEQSA of the agreement and their management/mitigation of the risks posed by it. Information about reporting material changes is in TEQSA’s Material Change Notification Policy.

    Obligations applying to providers educating overseas students in Australia

    For providers educating students from overseas, the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (the National Code) Part B and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act) apply.

    The National Code applies to providers and their agents/partners in delivering education services. From the National Code, relevant clauses for delivery of education with other parties that TEQSA considers in its work include:

    • 1.1-1.3 – provider and its education agents may supply information relevant to a provider’s courses (including information about other parties the provider delivers courses with). This information should not be false or misleading.
    • 2.1.6 – requires the provider, prior to accepting an overseas student, to inform the student of the details of any arrangements with other parties who will provide the course or part of the course.
    • 4 – providers must ensure education agents are clear on their responsibilities and act in accordance with them.
    • 5 – providers must ensure it and any other party delivering education can meet the legislative and other regulatory requirements relating to child welfare and protection.
    • 6 – providers must ensure it and other parties delivering the education provide appropriate assistance and information to support overseas students’ adjustment to study and life in Australia.
    • 11.1.4 and 11.2.5 – in registering a course, a provider must seek approval from TEQSA for arrangements with other parties. Providers must also demonstrate other parties they engage to deliver a course has adequate staff, resources, and facilities.

    Identified issues

    TEQSA has identified a range of issues which are indicative of deficiencies in a provider’s delivery with other parties. These include, but are not limited to:

    • a lack of clear standards for the contracting, retention, and support for delivery and assessment staff, including standards for equivalency and scholarly activity, which can result in breaches of the regulatory framework
    • confusion between the provider and other party about who holds critical responsibilities in delivering the course, as well as inconsistent or conflicting educational and academic goals, resulting in the poor course management
    • a lack of training provided to staff and students on institutional policies, resulting in compromised academic quality and inconsistencies across student cohorts, campus and faculties
    • misunderstandings or disagreements, between the provider and other party about procedures and responsibilities. This can lead to significant impacts on the experience students and wellbeing of staff, especially if a provider chooses to end its relationship with the other party
    • unclear expectations and/or a lack of student performance monitoring by the provider, resulting in failure to deliver as expected or agreed outcomes. This can include high attrition rates, poor progression outcomes, high numbers of reported grievances
    • inconsistent reports from the other party about its performance and compliance. This makes it difficult for the provider to assure itself of the other party’s ongoing compliance with relevant frameworks and to ensure the welfare of students
    • the other party making changes to a provider’s course without approval and appropriate oversight. This may result in the course being of poorer quality and becoming non-compliant with frameworks such as the AQF
    • the other party lacks the necessary resources or skills to provide support services for students including to:
      • overcome cultural, linguistic, or technological barriers to student participation, and
      • ensure student wellbeing and safety
    • inadequate information is made available to students about which party is responsible for responding to their concerns, making it difficult to resolve them
    • providers are not cognisant of the facility and infrastructure requirements of their student cohorts when outsourcing to third parties such as prayer rooms. 

    Related resources

    Version #

    Date

    Key changes

    1.0

    April 2015

     

    2.0

    19 August 2016

    Updated for the HESF 2015 and made available as beta version for consultation.
    2.1 11 October 2017 Addition to ‘What will TEQSA look for?” text box.
    2.2 8 October 2019 Updated to include consultation feedback.
    3.0 7 July 2023 Major revision.

     

     

    Subtitle
    Version 3.0
    Stakeholder
    Publication type

    Documents

    tom.hewitt-mcmanus
    tom.hewitt-mcmanus

  • Improving the transparency of higher education admissions

    Body

    Executive summary

    In 2016, following a request from the Minister for Education and Training, the Higher Education Standards Panel (HESP, ‘the Panel’) delivered 14 recommendations to achieve greater transparency in the admissions information for higher education. The Final Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan (‘IWG Implementation Plan’), which was developed by the sector-led Implementation Working Group (IWG), states that by March 2020, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) would undertake a review of the sector’s responses to the Panel’s recommendations.

    This report presents TEQSA’s summative evaluation of the sector’s responses against the Panel’s recommendations and the IWG’s Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets (‘Phase Two Information Sets’). TEQSA’s evaluation focussed on the requirements and activities outlined in the IWG’s documents that are relevant to the agency and did not explore outcomes beyond this scope in detail. In undertaking its evaluation, TEQSA adopted a stratified sampling method comprising an evaluation of 64 of the 111 providers that deliver higher education to domestic undergraduate students (28 universities, 36 higher education providers).

    Overall, TEQSA found that there have been improvements in the transparency of admissions information, with the majority of sampled providers (92 per cent; 59 out of 64 providers) being found to have engaged with the Panel’s recommendations by implementing changes to their admissions information1.

    • Five providers had achieved a high level of transparency of their admissions information, with only minor issues preventing full implementation of the IWG’s specifications.
    • 42 providers had implemented most of the changes with one substantial gap. These include outdated student profiles, missing Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank (ATAR) tables, and incorrect usage of the applicant groups.
    • 12 providers provided the requisite admissions information as a separate document on their websites. This was in line with the initial actions in the Implementation Plan due by August 2017 but should have progressed further by the time of the summative evaluation.

    Five providers did not have evidence of having implemented any of the recommended changes. Two of these providers had made some effort to update their Tertiary Admission Centre’s (TAC) page, noting that the Implementation Plan states it is acceptable for providers to have admissions information solely on the TAC site, provided it is clearly linked and accessible from the provider’s website.

    In addition to the findings above, TEQSA identified several areas for further improvement within the sector. These include:

    • Providers needing to ensure that ATAR profiles are up-to-date.
    • The types of adjustment factors should be detailed more clearly and consistently.
    • Greater quality, consistency, and clarity of admissions information for the four applicant groups (Higher Education Study, Vocational Education and Training, Recent Secondary Education, and Work Life Experience).
    • The availability of course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning and advanced credit can be improved.

    While the positive changes in the sector in response to the Panel’s recommendations and the IWG’s Implementation Plan are encouraging, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the need for clear and transparent information, with expectations of increased demand from domestic school leavers for tertiary education. Further, there is evidence of different entry options for current and prospective students emerging as providers respond to the changing needs of prospective students completing a disrupted final year of secondary education.

    Background

    Context

    In February 2016, the Minister for Education and Training requested that the Higher Education Standards Panel (‘the Panel’) provide recommendations to improve the transparency, comparability, and accessibility of information about entry pathways to higher education while minimising regulatory impact on providers.

    In response, the Panel released a consultation paper on the transparency of higher education admissions processes and subsequently received 82 written submissions. Through the consultation process, the Panel found a diversity of application pathways and admissions processes in Australia’s higher education sector, further increasing the complexities for prospective students as they navigate the admissions and application processes into higher education.

    In November 2016, the Panel released its final report, Improving the Transparency of Higher Education Admissions (‘final report’), which set out 14 recommendations. The final report highlighted inconsistencies in the ways in which admission requirements were expressed and the need for coordinated action. The Panel’s key recommendations include the use of common and consistent language to describe ATAR thresholds and other admissions requirements, and the presentation of information on admissions processes using agreed and standardised templates to ensure comparability for prospective students. In response to the Panel’s report, the government accepted the Panel’s recommendations.

    TEQSA was asked to undertake a review of the sector’s responses to the Panel’s recommendations.

    Admissions Transparency Implementation Plan

    A sector-led group, the Admissions Transparency Implementation Working Group (IWG), was established to develop a practical response to the Panel’s recommendations. The IWG released the Implementation Plan, which sets out specific actions for higher education providers (‘providers’), TACs, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (the Department), and TEQSA to undertake across three stages from 2017 to 2020.

    By adopting a staged approach, this ensured that any transitional arrangements and adjustments would be manageable for providers and prospective students. The Implementation Plan sets out six objectives:

    1. Standardised presentation of admissions information
    2. Adoption of common admissions terminology
    3. Revised ATAR-related thresholds and definitions
    4. Tertiary Admission Centres adopt more consistent approaches and reporting and streamline interstate application processes
    5. TEQSA monitoring and guidance on admissions transparency
    6. New national admissions information platform.

    In order to achieve these objectives, the IWG proposed the adoption of agreed information sets on admissions-related information as a key mechanism that sets out the consistent formats and terminology. These are not mandatory and the information sets were designed in a manner to enable appropriate adaptation to suit each provider’s individual needs.

    • Whole-of-institution admission information set2: conveys common admission policies and requirements that apply to all (or the vast majority of) courses offered by the provider.
    • Program/course admission information set: sets out admission criteria for each course and is different from the whole-of-institution set, including a small amount of comparable data about recent offers and enrolments in the course.

    The information sets were designed to support prospective domestic undergraduate students in Australia, including applicants for diploma, advanced diploma, associate degree and bachelor’s degree courses.

    In July 2018, the IWG released an updated specification document, Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets (‘Phase Two Information Sets’), for adoption by the end of May 2018. This document sets out the template and types of admissions information that all providers are expected to display on their publications, websites, or the relevant TACs for both the institution and course levels. These requirements are summarised at Figure 1.

    Figure 1: Summary of admissions information in the Phase Two Common Terminology and Information Sets

    Improving the transparency of higher education admissions - Figure 1

    The two central elements of the information sets are the ATAR tables for courses that use ATAR as an admissions criterion, and student profiles at both the institution and course levels. Providers also need to categorise their admissions information into four background groups that would assist potential applicants to locate the types of information most relevant to their circumstances and past educational experience—Recent Secondary Education (RSE), Higher Education Study (HE), Vocational Education and Training (VET) Study, and Work Life Experience (WLE).

    • Recent Secondary Education (RSE): Applicants whose admission is based mostly on secondary education undertaken at school, technical and further education (TAFE) or other VET or higher education provider (Australian or overseas equivalent) within the previous two years.
    • Higher Education Study (HE): Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a higher education course.
    • Vocational Education and Training (VET) Study: Applicants whose highest level of study enrolment since leaving secondary education is a VET course.
    • Work Life Experience (WLE): Applicants who left secondary education more than two years previously and have not undertaken VET or higher education study since then.

    In accordance with the fifth objective of the IWG Implementation Plan, TEQSA carried out a summative evaluation of the sector’s implementation of admissions transparency from September 2019 to December 2019. At this point, it was expected that providers would have fully adopted and integrated the requirements of the Implementation Plan, including those set out in the Phase Two Information Sets.

    This report presents TEQSA’s summative evaluation of the sector’s responses against eight of the Panel’s recommendations which are grouped into two themes:

    1. Accessibility and transparency of admissions information
    2. Comparability of admissions information.

    TEQSA’s evaluation focussed on the requirements and activities outlined in the IWG documents that are relevant to the agency and did not explore outcomes beyond this scope.

    Summary of TEQSA’s findings against the Panel’s recommendations

    Key Theme 1: Accessibility and transparency of admissions information

    Admission criteria that is accessible, clear, and transparent allows prospective students to make informed choices regarding their higher education studies. Within the context of this report, ‘transparency’ and ‘accessibility’ specifically pertain to the following Panel recommendations:

    Panel Recommendations

    Panel Recommendation 1.1

    A student-centred approach is critical to the provision of information about admissions.

    Panel Recommendation 1.3

    Access to clear information relating to admissions requirements and various entry pathways are to be made available to all applicants equally.

    Panel Recommendation 4

    For each course, the provider should publish information that clearly identifies the basis for determining admission to the course, including whether admission is on the basis of ATAR or an alternative pathway.

    Panel Recommendation 5

    Where admission to a course is determined in whole or part on the basis of an individual’s ATAR, the provider should publish information that identifies clearly the minimum ATAR admission requirements for the course and the provider’s bonus point arrangements. ATAR acceptance outcomes or thresholds should be reported at the completion of all offer rounds.

    TEQSA’s findings

    Student-centred approach (Panel Recommendation 1.1)

    TEQSA found strong evidence within the sector of a student-centred approach to the provision of admissions information. At an institution level, 78 per cent of the 64 sampled providers had a direct link to an admissions landing page on the homepage of their website. This was recommended by the IWG as a means to ensure prospective students can locate the required information in a direct and intuitive manner. Further, 80 per cent of sampled providers had an accessible student profile at the institution level.

    Notwithstanding, there were a few areas identified for further improvement. These include:

    • Recognition of the admissions information needs of students with prior study experience (Higher Education or Vocational Education and Training) at the course level. This could be addressed through clear admissions information being made available by providers regarding advanced standing (34 per cent of sampled providers included detail on this), credit transfer (52 per cent of sampled providers had detail on this), and recognition of prior learning (50 per cent of sampled providers included information on this).
    • Ensuring that admissions information is included on provider webpages rather than through attached documents (20 per cent of sampled providers relied on the use of standalone PDF documents).
    Entry pathways (Panel Recommendations 1.3 and 4)

    TEQSA evaluated the availability of admissions information across four student background groups: recent secondary education (RSE), prior higher education study (HE), prior vocational education and training (VET) study, and work and life experience (WLE).

    • Overall, TEQSA found that 84 per cent of sampled providers and 75 per cent of sampled courses had admissions information for prospective students in the RSE group. This group had the highest level of admissions information compared to other student background groups.
    • At an institution level, the majority of sampled providers included admissions information for students in the prior higher education study (80 per cent), prior VET study (81 per cent) and work and life experience (67 per cent) categories.

    TEQSA found that there is scope for improvement within the sector to provide admissions information at the course level in the prior HE study, prior VET study, and WLE student background groups at a course level. In each of these categories, the proportion of sampled courses with admissions information were 62 per cent, 56 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively.

    ATAR information (Panel Recommendation 5)

    In terms of publishing information on admissions pathways, minimum ATAR requirements and adjustment factors,, 57 per cent of courses that used ATAR scores as the basis for admission, used the ATAR template provided by the IWG. This template sets out information on the highest, median and lowest scores for students admitted in a previous intake. TEQSA found instances where intake information was outdated (this applied to approximately a third of sampled providers), and encourages the sector to ensure the currency of their ATAR and student profile information.

    TEQSA identified considerable room for improvement by the sector in setting out ATAR adjustment factors, with this detail only being available in the published course information for 6 per cent of sampled courses.

    Key Theme 2: Comparability of admissions information

    One of the key intended outputs of the admissions transparency project was to have admissions information that is comparable across providers and courses. The following Panel recommendations relate specifically to the theme of comparability:

    Panel Recommendations

    Panel Recommendation 2.1

    Make information on admissions policies available in a comparable format so that individuals can make better informed choices about providers and courses of study.

    Panel Recommendation 3

    Common language around admissions processes should be adopted by all higher education providers.

    Panel Recommendation 8

    A template should be adopted by higher education providers to publish institution level information in a standardised format about their admissions processes, which would be made available to prospective students on the national higher education admissions information platform.

    Panel Recommendation 9

    A template should be adopted for higher education providers to publish study area information in a standardised format about their admissions processes, which would be available to prospective students on the national higher education admissions information platform.

    TEQSA’s findings

    The adoption of common language around admissions processes and using the IWG templates to present admissions information serve to enhance the comparability of admissions information across providers and courses. This allows prospective students and parents to make an informed choice about further study.

    Templates and comparability (Panel Recommendations 2.1, 3, 8 and 9)

    TEQSA found that 73 per cent of providers (47 out of 64) had attempted to meet the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan, which requires the adoption of the full information sets and the agreed set of common terms in their admissions information3. Of these 47 providers:

    • Five providers had achieved a high level of transparency of admissions information, with only minor issues preventing full implementation of the IWG’s specifications.
    • 42 providers had implemented most of the changes with one substantial gap. The gaps include outdated student profiles, missing ATAR tables, and incorrect usage of the applicant groups.

    The remaining 12 providers only provided the requisite admissions information as a separate document on their websites. While this was in line with the first stage of the Implementation Plan (due by August 2017), the providers had not proceeded to make updates consistent with the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan by two years later.

    TEQSA found that five providers did not have evidence of having implemented any of the IWG’s recommended changes, however two of these providers had made some effort to update their respective TAC page. The Implementation Plan states that it is acceptable for providers to have admissions information solely on the relevant TAC site, provided it is clearly linked and accessible from the provider’s website.

    Noting that the analysis above is at an institution level, there is much work still to be done by providers to ensure that their course level admissions information is standardised and consistent. TEQSA encourages providers to continuously review their admissions information to ensure it is up-to-date and consistent.

    In summary, TEQSA’s recommended areas for further improvement include:

    • Ensuring available course level information for various student background groups.
    • Providing clear course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning and advanced credit.
    • Ensuring the currency of ATAR profiles where applicable.
    • Providing clear detail on ATAR adjustment factors.

    Summary

    TEQSA has found that the majority of sampled providers have endeavoured to improve the transparency of their publicly available admissions information by engaging with the Panel’s recommendations and implementing changes to their admissions information. However, TEQSA's evaluation shows that there is much further opportunity to enhance the transparency, accessibility, and comparability of admissions information at the course level.

    TEQSA has identified several areas for further improvement within the sector. These include:

    • The need for current ATAR profiles and ATAR information.
    • The need for greater consistency in admissions information around adjustment factors (where applicable), especially at the course level.
    • Greater quality, consistency and clarity of admissions information for the four applicant groups (Higher Education Study, Vocational Education and Training, Recent Secondary Education, and Work Life Experience).
    • Greater accessibility and transparency of course level admissions information on credit transfer, recognition of prior learning, and advanced credit.

    Appendix A: Summative Evaluation Assessment Methodology

    Scope of assessment

    The Higher Education Standards Panel made 14 recommendations in its final report relevant to TEQSA’s regulatory functions. The scope of TEQSA’s summative evaluation included an assessment of providers’ engagement with Recommendations 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the final report; data was specifically collected by TEQSA for the purposes of this assessment.

    A further five of the 14 recommendations (1.2, 1.5, 11, 12 and 14) were not within the scope of the summative evaluation.

    • Recommendation 1.2 – Higher education providers exercise autonomy over their admissions policies, consistent with the requirements set out in the Higher Education Standards Framework.
    • Recommendation 1.5 – Higher education providers are to be held accountable for public claims against their stated admissions policies.
    • Recommendation 11 – TEQSA should have an active role in monitoring compliance with guidance to the sector on transparency in higher education admissions, complementing the regular cycle of assessing applications for provider re-registration.
    • Recommendation 12 – TEQSA should draft a Guidance Note to providers, canvassing best practice in providing clear information on admissions processes.
    • Recommendation 14 – Further consideration should be given to assessing the factors and approaches that contribute to student success, completion and attrition rates in higher education.

    The above five recommendations, while not within the scope of TEQSA’s summative evaluation, have been addressed by the agency through the course of separate activities.

    Sampling

    The IWG determined that the focus of the admissions transparency project would be on prospective domestic undergraduate students, including applicants for diploma, advanced diploma, associate degree and bachelor degree courses. This meant that 119 out of 178 registered higher education providers at the time were in scope.

    A stratified sample of 64 providers was selected to achieve a representative geographical spread, by ensuring providers across each state and territory’s metropolitan and regional areas were included. To create a representative sample of provider types, the sample included providers with dual accreditation, university-affiliated colleges, single discipline and religious providers. This approach also ensured diversity in student demographics. As shown in Figure 1, 67 per cent of universities and 47 per cent of higher education providers in scope were included in the sample; providers across all states were included in the sample, and providers across regional and metropolitan areas were represented.

    Figure 2. Percentage of in-scope providers included in the sample by provider type, geographical location, and state (%)

    Improving the transparency of higher education admissions - Figure 2

    The evaluation also included admissions information presented at course level. Of the 114 courses evaluated, 20 were diploma courses, two associate degrees and 92 bachelor degrees. The courses selected spanned liberal arts, humanities, fine arts, science, law, business, languages, information technology, music, education, theology, medicine, hospitality, accounting and more. To ensure a representative sample of courses, a variety of admissions options such as auditions, folios, interviews, minimum ATARs and subject prerequisites and combinations of these were selected.

    Data gathering

    The Panel’s recommendations and the Phase Two Information Sets formed the framework for TEQSA’s summative assessment. In terms of the four applicant background groups described by the IWG (RSE, HE, VET, WLE), TEQSA has conducted its evaluation on an assumption that providers should include entry information relating to all four groups. TEQSA recognises that this may not reflect the practices of providers for all courses. TEQSA conducted desktop evaluations of provider websites and TAC sites (as necessary); for each provider, institution level information and two selected courses were assessed against the relevant IWG recommendations and the IWG’s Implementation Plan. If providers offered fewer than five undergraduate courses, only one course was assessed. The resulting data was entered into a purpose-built section of TEQSA’s database to maintain quality and consistency of data collection and evaluation. Data collection commenced on Monday 2 September 2019 and concluded on Tuesday 24 December 2019. An additional 24 assessments were performed during January 2020 of providers who had implemented changes as a result of their initial evaluation.

    At the institution level, 130 data points were collected, while 104 data points were collected at each individual course level. The qualitative data analysis includes hyperlinks, assessment comments and screenshot documentation.

    Notes

    1. The analysis presented in this section considers improvements made by providers at either the first stage or second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan.
    2. For the purposes of brevity, ‘whole-of-institution' will henceforth be referred to as ‘provider level’ or ‘institution level’.
    3. NB: This analysis is limited to a consideration of providers that implemented improvements consistent with the second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan. The analysis presented in the Executive Summary, by contrast, included improvements made by providers at either the first stage or second stage of the IWG Implementation Plan.
    Stakeholder
    Publication type