Body

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

What are TEQSA decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

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

Body

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues for students in online learning

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

Group discussion

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

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

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

Feedback from questions posed to discussion groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrap up

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

For further consideration and next steps

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

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

Body

Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participants conducted small group discussions focussing on the following questions:

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

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

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

Major themes discussed

TEQSA and professional accreditation bodies working more effectively together

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

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

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

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

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

Navigating variations in standards and requirements 

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

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

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

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

Reducing duplication

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

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

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

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

Risk-based approach

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

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

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

Next steps

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

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

Body

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

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

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

Contacts

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

Comments and enquiries about this report may be directed to:

Manager, Executive Office

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

GPO Box 1672

MELBOURNE VIC 3001

T: 1300 739 585

E: enquiries@teqsa.gov.au

Acknowledgements

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

Certification by the TEQSA Accountable Authority

The Hon Dan Tehan MP

Minister for Education 

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

30 November 2018

Dear Minister,

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Professor Nicholas Saunders, AO    

Chief Commissioner

Professor Cliff Walsh        

Commissioner

Dr Linley Martin

Commissioner

The Higher Education Standards Panel

Professor Nicholas Saunders

Chief Commissioner

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

GPO Box 1672

Melbourne VIC 3001

Dear Professor Saunders

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

The Higher Education Standards Panel

Professor Ian O’Connor AC, Chair

On behalf of:

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

9 November 2018

50 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra ACT 2600

 

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

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

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

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

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

TEQSA’s RPF consists of the following six KPIs:

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

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

1.2 Basis of self-assessment

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

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

1.2.1 Operational data

Operational data considered for the RPF includes metrics relating to:

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

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

1.2.2 About the survey

The 2018 survey consisted of:

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

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

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

1.2.3 Reporting period

This report is for the 2017–18 financial year.

1.2.4 Enquiries

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

2. Executive summary

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

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

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

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

2.1 RPF results at a glance

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

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

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

3. Performance by KPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – partially achieved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – achieved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – achieved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – achieved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – achieved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-assessment – achieved

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

Appendix A – Comparison of stakeholder survey results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Body

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 July 2018 until 30 September 2018. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Decision Date	Provider	Decision Description	Number of Conditions	Period Length
17-Jul-18	Leaders Institute Pty Ltd	Register new provider	2	4 years, 5 months
17-Jul-18	Leaders Institute Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	-	4 years, 5 months
18-Jul-18	Deakin University	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
25-Jul-18	Engineering Institute of Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x1)	1	7 years
25-Jul-18	Engineering Institute of Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x5)	-	7 years
15-Aug-18	Raffles College Pty Ltd	Extend accreditation of existing course (x2)	3	1 year, 3 months
21-Aug-18	Crown Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Register new provider	6	4 years
21-Aug-18	Crown Institute of Higher Education Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	-	4 years
12-Sep-18	Centre for Pavement Engineering Education Incorporated	Renew accreditation of existing course (x2)	-	7 years
14-Sep-18	Australian College of the Arts Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	-	7 years
24-Sep-18	Newcastle International College Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years

Body

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 April 2018 until 30 June 2018. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Decision Date	Provider	Decision Description	Number of Conditions	Period Length
11-Apr-18	Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd	Renew registration of existing provider	6	4 years
11-Apr-18	Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd	Renew accreditation of existing course (x2)	-	4 years
12-Apr-18	Nan Tien Institute Limited	Accredit new course	-	7 years
24-Apr-18	Christian Heritage College	Accredit new course (x3)	1	7 years
26-Apr-18	Harvest Bible College Ltd	Withdrawal of Registration	-	-
26-Apr-18	University of Southern Queensland	Renew registration of existing provider	1	7 years
27-Apr-18	ICHM Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x3)	-	7 years
4-May-18	Australian College of the Arts Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x2)	2	4 years
4-May-18	Australian Institute of Business and Management Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	1	4 years
9-May-18	Top Education Group Pty Ltd	Authorised provider to self-accredit courses	-	7 years
17-May-18	Melbourne Institute of Business and Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x5)	-	7 years
21-May-18	Group Colleges Australia Pty Ltd	Renew registration of existing provider	7	1 year, 6 months
23-May-18	Australian Institute of Business and Management Pty Ltd	Renew accreditation of existing course (x3)	-	4 years
29-May-18	Kaplan Higher Education Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	3	7 years
22-Jun-18	Colleges of Business and Technology (WA) Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
26-Jun-18	Jazz Music Institute Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
26-Jun-18	The Australian Institute of Music Limited	Accredit new course (x3)	-	7 years
27-Jun-18	Australian College of Nursing Ltd	Accredit new course	-	7 years
27-Jun-18	TAFE SA	Accredit new course (x2)	2	4 years
28-Jun-18	International College of Management, Sydney Pty. Limited	Renew accreditation of existing course (x2)	-	7 years

Body

Wells Advisory was commissioned by TEQSA in July 2021 to undertake the analysis presented in Forward impact of COVID-19 on Australian higher education. The purpose of the analysis was to broaden understanding of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australia’s higher education system.

The analysis provides TEQSA with a contemporary snapshot and additional contextual information to complement TEQSA’s own information sources and existing work, including the extensive data collections analysed through TEQSA’s risk assessment activity. 

The analysis confirms our understanding of the role that the pandemic has played in accelerating many of the trends and changes that were already occurring in Australia’s higher education system, in particular the shift to blended and online delivery of programs. These have combined with other structural impacts of COVID, including moves to diversify international student delivery away from the dominance of inbound (and substantially on-campus and face-to-face learning) to hybrid models that will increasingly incorporate the delivery of Australian higher education awards online, offshore and through third party arrangements. In part, this shift has been driven by the desire to support and retain students who have been unable to enter Australia, but has also been viewed as an opportunity to reach additional cohorts of students. With this diversification comes heightened risks related to the rigour of third-party arrangements, the management of agents and the quality of the delivery and the student experience.

These trends and other issues discussed in the report, including impacts on the short to mid-term ongoing financial viability of providers, highlight emerging and additional risks to the quality of higher education and the integrity of the sector. For example, TEQSA is already seeing emerging behaviours within the sector around competition for students and admission practices which may undermine recent gains made through the admissions transparency work of the Higher Education Standards Panel and TEQSA.  

TEQSA considers that the report provides useful insights into trends and developments in Australia’s higher education sector as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, setting these in the context of higher education policy reforms that have recently taken place or been announced.  

The issues identified in the report raise the likelihood of a period of ongoing uncertainty for the sector with the potential for increased risks to the delivery and quality of higher education and its consequent impact on students and the reputation of the sector. It is also incumbent upon TEQSA to consider the impacts and challenges for its regulatory model and practice in assuring the government and community of ongoing excellence in Australian higher education.

TEQSA publishes the Forward impact of COVID-19 on Australian higher education in the interests of further engagement with the sector, government and broader community.

Body

Register guidelines 

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Register) Guidelines 2017 (Register Guidelines) is a legislative instrument that sets out the information that TEQSA must enter on the national register in respect of each registered higher education provider.

• View the Register Guidelines and the National Register

Currently the Register Guidelines require TEQSA to include the name of each registered provider, as well as its ABN, business name(s) used for higher education operations, head office address, website address and titles of courses accredited by TEQSA.

Including the details of each provider’s principal contact officer and the Chief Executive Officer, would assist TEQSA to maintain current and accurate contact information for each registered provider. This is because section 29 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) requires providers to notify TEQSA of an event that will require the national register to be updated. The proposed change will provide clarity to providers in terms of the requirement to notify TEQSA when there are changes in specific roles. This change would also bring TEQSA in line with training.gov.au, the equivalent national register for the vocational education and training sector. 

With the introduction of the new Provider Category Standards, the ‘Australian University of Specialisation’ category has been removed. The proposed new requirement to state that an Australian University has a specialised focus, where relevant, offers a mechanism to publicly record that there is a relevant specialisation.

Information guidelines 

Section 204 of the TEQSA Act allows TEQSA to make, by legislative instrument, Information Guidelines to give effect to the requirements of subsection 189.

The Information Guidelines is a legislative instrument that sets out the Commonwealth authorities and the State or Territory authorities to which the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) may disclose higher education information under sections 189 and 194 of the TEQSA Act.

The inclusion of these bodies will ensure that TEQSA is capable of sharing relevant information about matters involving registered higher education providers.

Consultation process

This paper is being made available on our website and has been sent directly to peak bodies for providers regulated by TEQSA under the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA requests that feedback on the proposed amendments to the Register and Information Guidelines, along with any other relevant feedback, be submitted via email to review@teqsa.gov.au.

Submissions close at 5:00pm [AEDST] on Friday 26 November 2021.

Interested parties can also email review@teqsa.gov.au with queries about this consultation, or to seek clarification regarding the proposed amendments.

Please note that TEQSA intends to publish a summary of submissions received. If you do not wish for your submission (or part of your submission) to be published, please indicate this in your response. TEQSA may alter the format or content of submissions before they are published, or decline to publish particular submissions, having regard to the requirements for Australian Government websites.
 

Body

Updated on 12 October 2021

Purpose

This policy sets out the principles for how TEQSA manages concerns and complaints (collectively referred to as concerns) about regulated entities under TEQSA’s legislative framework.

Scope

This policy relates to concerns about registered higher education providers. It does not extend to complaints about TEQSA’s processes, staff or resources, or about TEQSA’s regulatory decisions. For information on these topics, refer to Complaints about TEQSA.

Principles

These principles are intended to ensure TEQSA applies a consistent, efficient and respectful approach to managing concerns to support TEQSA’s regulation of the Australian higher education sector.

Principle 1: TEQSA’s role in receiving concerns

1. TEQSA’s functions are established under section 134 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act (TEQSA Act) and include “collecting, analysing, interpreting and disseminating information relating to higher education providers, regulated awards quality assurance practices and quality improvement, and the Higher Education Standards Framework.” 
2. Concerns are an important source of intelligence to identify risks of non-compliance with a provider’s obligations under TEQSA’s legislative framework. 
3. TEQSA is not a complaints resolution body and typically does not have a role in addressing individual complainants’ grievances. We prioritise broader, systemic issues and are unlikely to pursue matters that:
   
   1. are one-off, isolated events, unless the conduct involves wider implications for students, staff, or the quality, integrity or reputation of the higher education sector
   2. have not been considered through the provider’s complaints handling processes
   3. are solely for the purpose of obtaining redress for students or staff, unless there is clear evidence of deficiencies in the provider’s complaint handling processes.
4. Anyone can raise a concern with TEQSA. Concerns should be submitted using the online form as the preferred method, however the method is not restricted.
5. All providers are required to have complaints handling processes capable of resolving complaints. This includes providing access to an independent third-party review if needed. 
6. TEQSA encourages individuals to consider raising concerns directly with the provider, where appropriate, using the provider’s complaints handling process. Doing so may result in a more timely and effective resolution with the provider. 

Principle 2: Protection of information

7. TEQSA accepts information from anonymous sources about higher education providers. TEQSA determines how to proceed in these circumstances based on the quality of the information available. TEQSA’s capacity to progress matters raised anonymously may be limited if further information is required.
8. TEQSA handles the personal information¹ of any individuals it collects in managing concerns in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and TEQSA’s Privacy Policy and Privacy Management Plan. 
9. TEQSA will usually only disclose an individual’s personal information outside of TEQSA, for example to the higher education provider or another government agency, with the individual’s consent. TEQSA requests consent to disclose the personal information provided in the concern to the provider and/or to another government agency (where applicable) at the time the concern is submitted. This consent is voluntary. For more information about how TEQSA collects, uses and discloses personal information, refer to TEQSA’s Complete APP Privacy Policy. 

Principle 3: Respectful engagement

10. TEQSA is committed to being respectful, responsive, fair and consistent in the way it manages concerns.
11. All concerns are recorded and carefully reviewed to determine the appropriate response.
12. If contact information is provided, TEQSA will acknowledge receipt of a concern in writing within 5 working days. 
13. If the concern is outside TEQSA’s remit, TEQSA will either refer the matter to the relevant government agency where appropriate and where the individual has provided consent to do so, or direct the individual to the relevant organisation that may assist.
14. TEQSA may contact the individual who raised the concern to request more information. 
15. Subject to TEQSA’s confidentiality obligations, TEQSA will advise the individual of the outcome of TEQSA’s consideration of the information they submitted. TEQSA will also provide information on how to make a complaint about TEQSA’s handling of their concern.

Principle 4: Risk-based approach

16. TEQSA takes a risk-based approach to considering concerns and deciding the appropriate response, guided by TEQSA’s compliance priorities.
17. TEQSA does not investigate every concern and will generally only take action on concerns where there is a serious risk to students or to the quality, integrity or reputation of the higher education sector, and where the concern relates to the provider’s compliance with its obligations within TEQSA’s legislative framework.
18. All concerns are recorded and may be used to inform future regulatory activity and identify risks. For example, TEQSA may take action where it identifies a trend in concerns raised.
19. TEQSA’s regulatory response is guided by TEQSA’s approach to compliance and enforcement, including consideration of the basic principles for regulation in the TEQSA Act.
20. TEQSA will apply principles of procedural fairness in addressing concerns with providers.

Contact

Any enquiries about TEQSA’s Concerns and complaints about providers policy can be directed to: concerns@teqsa.gov.au. 

Notes

1. The meaning of personal information for this purpose is set out in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).