Body

This application guide is currently being revised (as at January 2023).

Background

TEQSA Act

Registered higher education providers must comply with conditions of registration set out in Division 2 of Part 3 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act). TEQSA may impose other conditions on registration in accordance with subsection 32(1) of the TEQSA Act.

Other conditions imposed on registration may be varied or revoked by TEQSA either:

• on the agency’s own initiative in accordance with subsection 32(2) of the TEQSA Act, or
• upon application by the higher education provider in accordance with subsection 32(3) of the TEQSA Act.

A registered higher education provider must also comply with any conditions imposed by TEQSA on the accreditation of a course of study in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the TEQSA Act.

Conditions imposed on accreditation of a course of study may be varied or revoked by TEQSA either:

• on the agency’s own initiative in accordance with subsection 53(2) of the TEQSA Act, or
• upon application by the higher education provider in accordance with subsection 53(3) of the TEQSA Act.

Subsections 32(4) and 53(4) of the TEQSA Act provide that:

‘The provider’s application must be:

a. in the approved form; and
b. accompanied by any information, documents and assistance that TEQSA requests; and
c. accompanied by the fee determined under section 158 for an application under this section.’

TEQSA has developed the Application Form for Variation or Revocation of a Condition for use by higher education providers when applying to TEQSA to vary or revoke one or more conditions in accordance with the provisions of subsections 32(3) and 53(3) of the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA will consider applications for variation or revocation of a condition against the requirements of:

• the TEQSA Act
• the Threshold Standards, which include the Provider Standards and the Qualification Standards.

Completing the Application Form

There are four sections to the Application Form:

• Section 1 Provider details
• Section 2 Condition details
• Section 3 Revocation of condition(s)
• Section 4 Variation to condition(s).

The Application Form contains sections requiring free-text responses. Where the same responses are appropriate for more than one section, or where attachments contain relevant information for more than one section, cross-references to the relevant pages and/or information can be made.

Where the Application Form or any attachments refer to information or evidence on the applicant’s website, the weblink reference (url) should be noted in full, together with the exact location of the relevant information – for example, the name of the document and page number or section number that is being referred to. The url reference should hyperlink to that url. If information is referred to on a website, ensure that:

• the system is accessible to TEQSA
• appropriate checks have been made to ensure that access is not hindered by internal firewall protection
• there is facility to print documents
• there is facility to save and download documents.

If special provision needs to be made for TEQSA to access the provider’s intranet in order to retrieve information, these arrangements need to be made with TEQSA prior to formal submission of the application. Failure to do so will have an impact on TEQSA’s ability to assess the application.

Detailed guidance notes can be found on the Guidance notes page.

Body

Department of Education and Training and TEQSA webinar

Q. The minimum ATAR required for consideration and minimum ATAR to which an offer is guaranteed are optional, is that correct?

Yes, a provider can decide whether to use the ATAR as a factor in determining eligibility. If admission is based on ATAR, Minimum ATAR required for consideration and Guaranteed Entry ATAR are optional for publication in the program/course admission information set in 2017. If relevant, they will need to be published from 2018.

Q. Will universities be compelled under these changes to publish data on "forced offers" below the published ATAR, which have traditionally gone unreported publicly?

From 2017, where ATAR was a factor in determining eligibility of a recent secondary education leaver, the lowest ATAR to receive an offer should be published in the program/course admission information set. If ATAR was not a factor in the offer being made, the student’s ATAR would not be included in the ATAR profile.

Q. In regard to reporting ATARs for forced offers, we were told that whether to report them "would be up to the institution".  Surely the whole system of transparency falls apart if this is the case?

If an offer is made to a recent secondary student that is not based on ATAR the institution is not required to report the ATAR of that applicant. If an offer is made that is based wholly or partly on the applicant’s ATAR, then the institution is required to report the ATAR of that applicant.

Q. Will universities be required to provide student profile/enrolment data for each program/course or is the university student profile sufficient?

Both are required. The student profile in the whole-of-institution gives a picture of commencing students across the whole institution. But this would not provide an applicant with information specific to the program or course they are applying to, unless the provider only offered one program or course.

The student profile in the program/course admission information set (Appendix D to the Implementation Plan) illustrates the peer cohort that commenced in in the specific course of interest in the most recent relevant intake period.

Q. Can both sets be combined? As some of the information required in both sets is the same

In general, information in the program/course admission information set should not repeat information that applies to all applicants and is covered in the whole-of institution information set.  However, it should be clear to the applicant that the information is the same for both. For example, the program/course admission information could provide a link to the whole of institution information where it is the same.

Q. If all student profile information at course level falls into the 'low number' category, is a provider required to publish a table that effectively has no data

If the course is being offered for the first time, there is no need to publish a table. If the course has previously been offered and the number of students in the most recent intake was less than 5 the table should be published using L/N to indicate low numbers.

Q. When will the desktop snapshots be taken in 2017?

The snapshots of provider websites will be taken between September and October 2017.

Q. Will we be notified of the snapshots?

Providers will not be notified of the snapshots. TEQSA may contact a provider for the purposes of clarification.

The evaluation that TEQSA will undertake is formative, not summative. That is, we are using the information to consider how best to support the sector in providing improved transparency in admissions information.

Q. We are providing Semester 1 2017 data for 2018 admissions. We expect to then update and provide Semester 1 2018 data for 2019. We do have a mid-year intake. Are we expected to update to full year in the future?

Data should be provided for the most relevant recent intake period. If you have updated full-year data ready to go by the time you are publishing information to support the mid-year intake, you could consider using that instead of data from the first semester of the previous year. But it is up to institutions to determine the most relevant data to use.

Q. Will we be told what level of compliance TEQSA considers occurred with the implementation for this year?

During the implementation process, TEQSA’s assessment of compliance with sector admissions transparency commitments will not affect providers’ registration. It is being used to assess the progress of the sector as a whole and to determine how TEQSA can best support providers to achieve best practice. Therefore a ‘level of compliance’ will not be reported to each provider. A whole of sector assessment and evaluation is the initial goal.

Q. Are we required to provide an explanation of what the data means?

The implementation plan details the minimum amount of information that is required to be presented. A provider may choose to provide further explanation or information.

Q. Are there going to be some public communications so that students understand the new information? There is now so much information there is the potential for more confusion among the transparency.

The Department of Education and Training has a communication strategy to support implementation and this includes providing students, schools and career educators with information. To support the phased implementation, the information communicated to stakeholders will also be staggered – with more information appearing in 2018 to support full implementation.

In 2017, some existing terminology like “ATAR cut-off” and “clearly in ATAR” will be used alongside the new agreed common terms and data definitions. While this may be a little confusing, it may also help users to understand the transition to the new approach.

Q. How would you recommend educating prospective students on how to interpret data, to make a decision about their likely competitiveness for entry into a course?

See above. A communication strategy is in place, with information products tailored to different stakeholders being developed.

Q. The student profile table distinguishes between students admitted on the basis of ATAR and international students. What is the preferred method of categorising international students admitted via an ATAR score?

The main focus of the information sets is admission requirements and data for domestic undergraduate students. The ATAR profile table and all except one line of the student profile table should only include data on domestic students.

The only data on international students, regardless of selection method, should be in the “international students” line of the student profile tables. International students admitted on the basis of an ATAR should not be included in the ‘recent secondary education’ data.

Q. When we say offshore students, does it mean international students studying in Australia or Domestic students studying in other countries under specific arrangement?

‘Offshore students’ refers to students studying in other countries. The current implementation relates to domestic undergraduate students studying in Australia.

Q. Is it recommended we publish ATAR thresholds after each TAC offer round?

Data should be provided for the most relevant recent intake period. Based on stakeholder feedback during consultation it seems likely that, to inform applicants for the following semester one intake, most providers would use data covering the most recent entire semester one intake period – including all offer rounds that were part of that intake period. The data would likely be needed at the latest by mid-year to support publication timelines so full-year data would be unlikely to be available for the current year; and using full year data from the previous year might be considered out of date.

To support mid-year intake rounds, some providers may be in a position by then to have data for the previous full calendar year available. Updating the data used in information sets would be a choice for the institution.

Q. Where we only have students, who are not included in the datasets (e.g. only postgrad) is there a specific way we should note or clarify this to our applicants?

At this stage, the admissions transparency information plan only applies to courses available for domestic undergraduate applicants. If you do not offer courses for domestic undergraduate students, you do not have to provide information in the ‘information set’ format.

Q. Can you clarify requirements if all our students are UG and internationals?

If you have courses that have both domestic and international undergraduate students, the international students should be included in the data for ‘international students’ in the student profile.

Q. Do we need to publish data sets for 1-year Honours programs (i.e. a 1-year add on after completion of a UG degree)

If the honours program is offered as a postgraduate course, the ‘information set’ approach to publishing admission requirements and student data is not required. An institution may use the ‘information set’ approach to publish postgraduate course information if they wish.

Q. What about a Graduate Diploma which is equivalent to an Honours year course?

A Graduate Diploma is a postgraduate course; therefore the ‘information set’ approach to publishing admission requirements and student data is not required. An institution may use the ‘information set’ approach to publish postgraduate course information if they wish.

Q. Where an applicant was accepted on the basis of secondary studies at school two years previously and then deferred a year would they still be including in the 'recent secondary school' applicant group?

In accordance with the HEIMS data definitions, commencements data in the student profile covers students admitted in the most recent intake period who have passed the course census date. Offer data in the ATAR profile covers all offers made in the most recent relevant intake period.

As a general principle, the offer made to the recent secondary student would be included in the ATAR profile data soon after the offer is made. The commencement would appear in the student profile after the deferment has concluded, and once the student has commenced and passed the census date.

Q. Do we need to publish information sets for pathway students leading to undergraduate studies?

The information sets are not required for enabling, bridging or other non-award courses; only undergraduate programs open to domestic students.

Q. Is it still okay to include international students in the data profile now?

Data on international undergraduate students should be included in the student profile in both the whole-of-institution and program/course admission information sets. Admission requirements for international students are not required in the information sets as the initial focus is on domestic undergraduate students studying in Australia.

Body

Department of Education and Training and TEQSA webinar

Q. Why has May been signalled as a deadline for phase two and how this will interact with 2019 course offering release timelines?

The May 2018 deadline was picked to align with Tertiary Admission Centres’ (TACs) publication timelines. Most of the TACs are finalising the input they require for publications by then. Whilst it may not be necessary for institutions to have new information on their websites by May we would expect whatever information is produced to support applications to study in 2019 would comply with the new format. If you would normally have this information on your website in July or August, then you would still proceed with that timeline but the information you would need to provide to TACs would need to be available much earlier than that.

Q. ATAR data provided for all students, does this include the ATAR equivalent post-secondary qualifications and work life experience or is this limited to recent school leavers?

ATAR data in the ATAR profile only relates to recent secondary education students who are made an offer based on or partly based on their ATAR. It’s only the recent secondary education group that the ATAR profile relates to. However, this could also include any mature age students who undertake senior secondary study at TAFE and are subsequently awarded an ATAR.

Q. Is the ATAR profile important to non-recent year 12 students?

The ATAR profile is only for offers made to recent secondary students admitted on the basis of ATAR alone or ATAR plus some other factors – e.g. interview, audition or portfolio assessment. Our understanding is that it would generally only be recent secondary students where ATAR would comprise the complete assessment of academic suitability for higher education study. For students who are applying to study who have been out of school for more than two years, other factors such as work experience, study attempted since leaving school or professional skills will start to take on more significance. Some institutions would already characterise those as ‘mature age’ or ‘non-school leaver’ applicants – equivalent to the new ‘work and life experience’ applicant grouping.

Q. How could a provider become a member of a TAC?

Contact the relevant TAC in your state to discuss your needs.

Q. How strict is TEQSA with the use of the new terminology, can we use the news term and in brackets use the old term?

To clarify, TEQSA is not concerned about the new terminology. It is the Implementation Working Group (IWG) that has gained agreement of the key sector organisations to adopt consistent use of common terms. TEQSA is looking at how that is being implemented. Having said that, in the interim, using the new terms alongside the old terms (in brackets), could be an option in some circumstances. However, it’s much cleaner to not use the old term in brackets. While people currently working in the sector know the old terms, we are actually talking about a new cohort each year; so they won’t necessarily be familiar with the previous terminology. A public glossary was provided in the phase two update to the implementation plan. Providers are encouraged to make that glossary available to information seekers.

Q. Can we get feedback from TEQSA on our institution’s website and what improvements we might need to make?

If you are following the implementation plan that is what is important. TEQSA does not have the capacity to give every institution a run down on what their website is and isn’t achieving. But if you have questions, please call/contact and ask and we’d be happy to discuss. If you have the implementation plan you have all the information necessary to see whether you’re doing it right or not. TEQSA is not holding providers to account in terms of our initial review, it’s really so that TEQSA can see the progress being made.

Q. Can you provide a couple of good practise examples?

TEQSA intends to publish good practice later in the year. At the moment there are not enough really good examples. TEQSA will look at the progress that’s been made after May because there isn’t much point TEQSA doing another review at this point until providers have had a chance to fully implement the plan. In the short-term TEQSA is providing advice on how to do things better but when it has had another chance to look at the 167 websites and found some good examples, TEQSA will look at publishing these later in the year. If anyone has a good example, feel free to send them to TEQSA. If we see any in the short term, TEQSA will be able to present these in the capital city workshops in March and April.

Q. Is there a mapping document of the categories on the Transparency applicant groupings to the department’s ‘basis of Admission’?

In broad terms, the admissions transparency applicant groupings are a direct translation of the department’s ‘basis of admission’ variable. Previously we used recent secondary, higher education, VET, mature age and ‘other’. The mature age category and ‘other’ has become ‘work and life experience’. Previous higher education and VET study remain the same. Until now, ‘recent secondary education’ has been disaggregated into two sub-groups – those admitted on the basis of ATAR and those without an ATAR in HEIMS. The new approach breaks the ATAR group down further into those admitted solely on the basis of ATAR and those admitted on the basis of ATAR plus some other factor - such as an interview, audition or a portfolio assessment. So the new groupings are very closely related.

Q. Will you be seeking feedback from new students on how they have found the information this year? In other words, has it been more complex or easier to understand?

All the TACs will be talking to students about how they are finding the information. Some limited market testing was undertaken with current and recent applicants based on the information published in phase one during 2017. The approach being taken was welcomed, especially the prospects for greater consistency in presentation and improved comparability between different courses and their entry requirements

Q. If they are new (2019) students, what basis of admission do they have?

In terms of the department’s basis of admission categories, the department will also be moving to these new categories. We will be moving from talking about mature age to talking about work and life experience and we will be looking at a three-way split of recent secondary education rather than the previous two-way split. So the department is adopting the same approach that the sector has committed to adopting. So, over time, we will all be speaking with one voice and one language.

Q. How are slip back offers (offers to a lower-level course) to other institutions or providers reported?

They don’t do slip back offers in Victoria, but when student profiles are prepared they are based on enrolments. Once people pass the census date, it’s not relevant if it’s a slip back offer or not, it’s whether or not somebody has enrolled in that course. The ATAR profile is for offers and the student profile is for enrolments. So if you didn’t make an offer to course ‘A’ but you made a slip back offer to course ‘B’, then based on ATAR, the ATAR information would go in course ‘B’, not in course ‘A’ because course ‘A’ didn’t make the offer.

Q. How will information be sourced for the new platform?

Where possible it’s intended to use existing data sources to deliver the platform in the required timeframe, particular for the first release. The department is working closely with Tertiary Admission Centres (TACs) to leverage information they already collect. With their updated editing systems they will be collecting information in the future that is compliant with the new requirements. It is intended that the information platform will utilise that information where possible to minimise the need for any additional new information from providers. While the precise details are still being worked through, we don’t at this stage anticipate there will be a call for new information from individual providers if they are already a member through a TAC and providing information through that mechanism. For those that aren’t members of TACs, we will need to work out a mechanism to get the information that’s needed but that’s still being worked through.

Q. Is there a grandfathering period for publications already in hard copy?  

For any publications that are in hard copy that are still current and relevant then you wouldn’t need to change those, but for any new information that’s published for 2019 admissions and beyond, it should be compliant with the new requirements.

Q. Are TACs relevant to foundation studies pathway programs?

In Victoria a number of institutions run admissions to pathway and foundation programs throughout the TAC. TACs in other states have differing approaches so you would need to talk to the most relevant TAC to find out.

Q. If slip back is on behalf of another institution and not your own does it still need to be reported by the offering institution?

If it’s a higher education course then yes. Data on all offers of admission to a course on the basis of ATAR should be included in the ATAR profile table, whether this was from a slip back offer or otherwise. The intent of the ATAR profile tables is to demonstrate what the institution is prepared to accept in terms of students coming through with an ATAR. If you’re making an offer to a student who has an ATAR of 65, regardless of what stage of the process it is your making the offer, then in the next reporting period that offer should be included in that ATAR profile because it demonstrating to future applicants what ATAR you were prepared to accept in the most recent application process.

Q. The project and terminology seems focused on universities and is difficult to use as a private provider especially with the majority of students studying online and overseas/offshore, is there assistance available for private providers?

You can certainly call TEQSA’s admission transparency team. If you’re a member of a TAC you could also talk to them about that. The admissions transparency agenda at this time only impacts information for domestic undergraduate students. If, for example, you’re an institution that only makes offers to overseas students or to postgraduate students then you are not impacted. It doesn’t mean you can’t adopt the approach but it’s not a requirement or expectation at this point in time.

Q. The department is currently undertaking a review of all student submission files and some of the information required in admissions transparency.

This relates to the HEIMS review. The review of HEIMS or the redevelopment of HEIMS is being conducted in full knowledge of the admissions transparency agenda and it’s certainly taking into account the information requirements for the information platform. It’s intended that information for the platform would be sourced where possible from TACs or HEIMS. So yes, they are looking to make sure the HEIMS data lines up with the data in the admissions information platform. One example of that would be around the recent secondary education basis of admission because at the moment in HEIMS we are only able to disaggregate recent secondary education into two groups, admitted on the basis of ATAR or not on the basis of ATAR. In the admissions transparency agenda there is a need to disaggregate it into three groups, ATAR alone, ATAR with something else like a portfolio assessment or audition or not on the basis of ATAR. These issues are being considered during the redevelopment of HEIMS.

Q. If an adjustment based on equity consideration is made to a course threshold and not to the individual students ATAR selection rank, how is this reported in the ATAR profiles?

In the ATAR profiles there are two columns offered, at a minimum it’s required that you include a profile of the raw unadjusted ATARs. If you want to you can also include a second column that has the selection ranks; with the selection rank including any adjustments that are made in response to equity, subject-specific, or other factors. If the approach your institution takes is to lower the threshold ATAR for some individual applicants or cohorts of applicants, the two columns may not be very different. If your institution adds positive adjustment factors (e.g. what up to now have been called ‘bonus points’), the ATAR and selection rank profiles may look quite different. But at a minimum there should be a column that has the raw unadjusted ATAR.

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 2017 until 30 September 2017. 

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
5-Jul-17	S P Jain School of Global Management Pty Limited	Accredit new course	3	2 years, 8 months
18-Jul-17	Engineering Institute of Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	1	7 years
18-Jul-17	Engineering Institute of Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course	2	7 years
31-Aug-17	Academy of Design Australia Limited (formerly Australian Academy of Design Inc)	Renew registration of existing provider	4	4 years
31-Aug-17	The Australian Institute of Music Limited	Renew registration of existing provider	2	4 years
4-Sep-17	Acknowledge Education Pty Ltd (formerly Stott's Colleges Pty Ltd)	Accredit new course	-	7 years
5-Sep-17	Sheridan College Inc.	Accredit new course	1	7 years
6-Sep-17	Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x3)	1	4 years
7-Sep-17	Kollel Academy of Advanced Jewish Education Limited	Renew accreditation of existing course	-	7 years
7-Sep-17	Kollel Academy of Advanced Jewish Education Limited	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
8-Sep-17	Macleay College Pty Limited	Accredit new course	-	4 years
8-Sep-17	Macleay College Pty Limited	Accredit new course	-	7 years
8-Sep-17	Macleay College Pty Limited	Accredit new course	1	4 years
21-Sep-17	The Australian Institute of Music Limited	Renew renewal of accreditation of existing course (x3)	3	-
22-Sep-17	Top Education Group Pty Ltd	Accredit new course (x3)	-	7 years
27-Sep-17	National Art School	Accredit new course	-	7 years
28-Sep-17	Bond University Limited	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years
28-Sep-17	The Institute of Internal Auditors-Australia	Renew accreditation of existing course	-	7 years
28-Sep-17	The Institute of Internal Auditors-Australia	Renew registration of existing provider	-	7 years

Body

Over the last 20 years, there has been significant interest in factors leading to student drop out (attrition) from first-year higher education studies. The factors identified include a range of personal attributes of the students themselves as well as academic and administrative aspects of higher education institutions’ operations. Concern over attrition is primarily centred on financial and reputational issues, for governments and for the institutions. But the issue is of considerable significance for the students themselves, in terms of wasted time and personal debt.

While many new approaches to improving student attrition outcomes have been tried and there has been some improvement in retention in Australia and other countries, the improvement is not universal across the institutions, and there remains a persistent level of attrition in the sector.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Government has been monitoring and publishing university attrition rates regularly and has a significant historical time series of data on attrition from 1992 to the present time (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2004; Department of Education, 2015; and Department of Education and Training, 2016). The published data show that overall, until 2010 average attrition rates were slowly decreasing in universities but not universally, and since then have slightly increased, but currently are at similar levels to those observed early in the decade.

TEQSA categorises providers in Australia’s diverse higher education sector into various ‘market’ groupings. The two major groups are universities and non-university higher education providers (NUHEPS). The latter is divided into a number of subcategories (TAFE, faith-based not-for-profit, other not-for-profit, for-profit and pathway organisations) which exhibit different student profiles, institutional characteristics and attrition rates. Therefore it is important to look at student attrition across the whole-sector, and not just in the universities.

Student attrition is identified by TEQSA as a major risk factor for higher education providers. Indeed, it is the most common indicator of high risk to students across the sector.

A copy of the report is available above in PDF format.

Body

Body

On 29 July 2019, TEQSA released the Integrating the Provider Information Request into the Higher Education Data Collection consultation paper, that sought to request feedback from the higher education sector concerning the minimising and streamlining of reporting requirements, and improving the transparency and efficiency of data collected. The consultations were in preparation for the implementation of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (‘DESE’) data redevelopment project, Transforming the Collection of Student Information (‘TCSI’), that aims to align TEQSA and DESE data collections to create a single, unified reporting system for universities, higher education and vocational institutions.

The sector responded enthusiastically to the paper, with six (6) submissions received and a robust presence on social media during the submission period, which concluded on 20 September 2019. TEQSA, in conjunction with our colleagues at the DESE, considered these submissions alongside additional feedback stemming from workshops in Melbourne (12 November 2019) and Sydney (15 November 2019) that were ran in conjunction with the DESE and Services Australia (previously Department of Human Services, ‘SA’). TEQSA has attempted to integrate the suggestions and concerns generated during the consultation into its final data framework.