Course accreditation and reaccreditation

Report on accreditation of three higher education courses of study and renewal of accreditation of two higher education course of study offered by Educational Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd (Eynesbury)

A delegate of TEQSA has accredited the following courses to be offered by Eynesbury under section 49 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), for seven years from the date of decision;

• Diploma of Business Studies
• Diploma of Computing and Information Technology Studies
• Diploma of Engineering Studies

A delegate of TEQSA has renewed accreditation of the following courses offered by Eynesbury under section 56 of the TEQSA Act, for a period of seven years until 10 July 2022:

• Diploma of Business
• Diploma of Computing and Information Technology

Main reasons for decision

TEQSA has determined that the three higher education courses of study submitted by Eynesbury for accreditation, and the two higher education courses of study submitted by Eynesbury for renewal of accreditation comply with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards and arrangements for delivery at all Australian sites.

Renewal of course accreditation

Report on renewal of accreditation of two higher education courses of study offered by Academy of Design Australia Limited (formerly Australian Academy of Design Inc)

A delegate of TEQSA has renewed, under section 56 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), the accreditation of the following higher education courses of study offered by Academy of Design Australia Limited for a period of seven years until 31 January 2025:

• Bachelor of Design Arts
• Associate Degree of Design Arts

Main reasons for the decision

TEQSA has determined that the two higher education courses of study submitted by Academy of Design Australia Limited for renewal of accreditation comply with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards. TEQSA's assessment considered Academy of Design Australia Limited's arrangements for delivery at all Australian sites.

Renewal of course accreditation

Report on renewal of accreditation of two higher education courses of study offered by Academy of Design Australia Limited (formerly Australian Academy of Design Inc)

A delegate of TEQSA has renewed, under section 56 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), the accreditation of the following higher education courses of study offered by Academy of Design Australia Limited for a period of seven years until 31 January 2025:

• Bachelor of Design Arts
• Associate Degree of Design Arts

Main reasons for the decision

TEQSA has determined that the two higher education courses of study submitted by Academy of Design Australia Limited for renewal of accreditation comply with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards. TEQSA's assessment considered Academy of Design Australia Limited's arrangements for delivery at all Australian sites.

Course accreditation

Report on accreditation of one higher education course of study offered by the International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd

A delegate of TEQSA has accredited, under section 49 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), the following higher education course of study offered by International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd for a period of seven years until 6 February 2025:

• Diploma of Information Technology

Main reasons for the decision

TEQSA has determined that this higher education course of study submitted by International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd for accreditation complies with the Provider Course Accreditation Standards.

TEQSA's assessment considered the International Institute of Business and Technology (Australia) Pty Ltd's arrangements for delivery at all Australian sites.

The following observations are provided for IIBT to consider in the review and improvement of its higher education operations. IIBT may wish to:

1. correct naming inconsistencies in course documentation prior to course delivery to prevent any potential confusion among staff and students regarding the course and unit titles (3.1.1)
2. map learning outcomes against the Australian Computing Society's (ACS's) graduate attributes to indicate how the course structure and content meet industry requirements and needs (3.1.5)
3. broaden the involvement of industry participants on the Advisory Board and establishing a Course Review Committee that comprises senior academics, industry representatives, current students and graduates of this course to ensure robust and independent course review practices (3.1.5, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3b)
4. monitor the use of course resources (especially textbooks) to ensure that they are accessible to students when needed (3.3.1)
5. insert into marketing materials and documents for prospective students (e.g. course webpage, letter of offer, course brochure) links to IIBT's recognition of prior learning (RPL) and credit transfer policies to make these arrangements clear and transparent (7.2.2a).

Variation of condition on registration

Report on variation of condition on registration of Raffles College Pty Ltd

On 2 June 2017, TEQSA varied, under Section 32(2) of the TEQSA Act, condition ii imposed on the registration of Raffles College Pty Ltd (trading as Raffles College of Design and Commerce ("RCDC")) (refer public report of 25 January 2016).

Background and Reasons for Decision

Condition ii on RCDC's registration required it to cease to deliver all of its higher education courses at its associate colleges, except those specified, by 1 February 2016 (the cessation date).

At the time condition ii was imposed on its registration, RCDC offered its Bachelor of Design course (the course) at three associate colleges (the colleges) in India.

Condition ii required RCDC to cease to deliver the course at the colleges by the cessation date. RCDC was also required to make suitable arrangements for its students(the students) who had not yet completed the course.

Despite condition ii, the colleges continued to teach the course after the cessation date and misrepresented to the students that they continued to be enrolled in the course and would, if successful, be conferred with the award for the course.

Following a review, by an independent discipline expert commissioned by TEQSA, of students' work undertaken at the colleges after the cessation date, TEQSA was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the students were eligible to graduate and receive the appropriate RCDC testamur despite the course having been delivered contrary to condition ii.

In order to enable RCDC to grant the award for the course to the students, consistent with the conditions of RCDC's registration, TEQSA varied condition ii which now provides:

2. RCDC must cease to deliver all of its higher education courses at all of its associate colleges, except its associate colleges in Colombo, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, by 1 February 2016. However, this condition does not prohibit RCDC from conferring a higher education award where:
   
   1. The student on whom the award is being conferred completed a Bachelor of Design course in India, whether before or after 1 February 2016; and
   2. RCDC provides TEQSA with a list of students to whom paragraph A applies and on whom RCDC confers a higher education award. The list must be provided to TEQSA no later than 30 days after the imposition of this condition.

Renewal of course accreditation and registration

Report on revocation of a condition on accreditation of one higher education course of study offered by Academies Australasia Polytechnic

Report on revocation of conditions on registration of Academies Australasia Polytechnic as a higher education provider

On 12 February 2018 a delegate of TEQSA revoked, under subsections 53(3) of the TEQSA Act, the condition imposed on the accreditation of the following course offered by Academies Australasia Polytechnic (refer public report of 26 May 2016).

• Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management

The decision to revoke the condition was made on the basis that the delegate was satisfied that the conditions had been met.

On 12 February 2018 a delegate of TEQSA revoked, under subsection 32(3) of the TEQSA Act, the four conditions imposed on the registration of Academies Australasia (refer public report of 26 May 2016).

The decision to revoke the conditions was made on the basis that the delegate was satisfied that the conditions had been met.

Renewal of course accreditation and registration

Report on revocation of a condition on accreditation of one higher education course of study offered by Academies Australasia Polytechnic

Report on revocation of conditions on registration of Academies Australasia Polytechnic as a higher education provider

On 12 February 2018 a delegate of TEQSA revoked, under subsections 53(3) of the TEQSA Act, the condition imposed on the accreditation of the following course offered by Academies Australasia Polytechnic (refer public report of 26 May 2016).

• Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management

The decision to revoke the condition was made on the basis that the delegate was satisfied that the conditions had been met.

On 12 February 2018 a delegate of TEQSA revoked, under subsection 32(3) of the TEQSA Act, the four conditions imposed on the registration of Academies Australasia (refer public report of 26 May 2016).

The decision to revoke the conditions was made on the basis that the delegate was satisfied that the conditions had been met.

Course accreditation and conditions on registration

Report on accreditation of one higher education course of study offered by Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd (formerly The Centre of Academic Excellence Pty Ltd)

TEQSA has agreed to orders made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under which the Bachelor of Information Technology higher education course of study, under section 49 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), be accredited to be offered by Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd ('Kent Institute') until 1 June 2021:

These orders also involve the imposition of conditions on the registration of Kent Institute under subsection 32(1) of the TEQSA Act. A copy of the conditions is available at Attachment 1. The course accreditation covers delivery at all Australian sites.

Background to Decision

Kent Institute applied to TEQSA for accreditation of its Bachelor of Information Technology higher education course of study under Section 46 of the TEQSA Act.

A TEQSA delegate considered Kent Institute's application and made a decision to reject the application for accreditation, sending Kent Institute a Statement of Reasons setting out details of why the TEQSA delegate decided to reject the application for accreditation of the course of study.

The TEQSA delegate made this decision on the basis that they were not satisfied that the course met the following Provider Course Accreditation Standards (PCAS):

• PCAS 1.2, in relation to course development, including development and assessment of English Language Proficiency (ELP);
• PCAS 2.1 and 2.3, in relation to the adequacy of resources available to support students, taking into account expected growth; and
• PCAS 4.4, in relation to effective mechanisms to identify and support students at risk of not progressing academically.

The TEQSA delegate also determined that Kent was at risk of not meeting the following PCAS in relation to the course of study: 1.7, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.3 and 5.4.

Kent Institute applied for an internal review of the decision to reject the application for accreditation of the course of study. No decision was made by TEQSA prior to the required date for internal review under subsection 186(2) of the TEQSA Act, meaning that TEQSA had taken to have affirmed the decision to reject the application for internal review.

Kent Institute applied for a review of TEQSA's deemed affirmation of the rejection of its application for accreditation at the AAT.

Main Reasons for Decision

After reviewing the material submitted by Kent Institute and participating in mediation with Kent Institute, TEQSA was satisfied that Kent Institute's Bachelor of Information Technology course of study meets the Threshold Standards. However TEQSA considered that there were risks in relation to:

1. Development of the requisite levels of English language proficiency (PCAS 1.2), on the basis of concerns about Kent Institute's student perform;
2. Engagement in intellectual inquiry consistent with the nature, level and expected learning outcomes of the course (PCAS 1.7), on the basis of an "ad hoc" approach to the presentation of theory and current controversies;
3. Adequacy of the existing facilities to meet student demand (PCAS 2.1);
4. Adequacy of library facilities (PCAS 2.2);
5. Adequacy of staffing (PCAS 4.1);
6. Staff scholarship (PCAS 4.2);
7. Inconsistency in student outcomes between Melbourne and Sydney (PCAS 5.3);
8. Monitoring and acting on student performance (PCAS 5.4).

On this basis, TEQSA agreed that it was appropriate to substitute TEQSA's initial decision to not grant the application with the decision to accredit the Bachelor of Information Technology until 1 June 2021 and to impose a number of conditions on Kent Institute's provider registration (see Attachment 1).

The conditions on registration are designed to address risks against the same Provider Course Accreditation Standards listed above in relation to TEQSA's reasons for initially deciding not to grant Kent Institute's application for accreditation of the Bachelor of Information Technology course of study.

TEQSA proposed to the AAT that the risks identified in the course accreditation be addressed by the imposition of conditions on registration. The AAT subsequently made orders in accordance with an agreement between TEQSA and Kent Institute to impose these conditions on registration.

Attachment 1

Conditions imposed on the registration of Kent Institute pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the TEQSA Act:

Condition 1:

Kent Institute must arrange for an independent and external review of the library and learning resources provided by Kent Institute for students of Kent Institute's higher education courses delivered in Sydney and Melbourne. Kent Institute must:

a) obtain TEQSA's approval of the identity of the reviewer before making an appointment.

b) provide TEQSA with the report arising from the review no later than 30 June 2017.

c) provide TEQSA with an implementation plan dealing with any recommendations from the review, together with evidence that the implementation plan has been discussed, considered and approved by Kent Institute's Academic Board by 31 July 2017.

Condition 2:

Within three months of the date of the imposition of this condition, Kent Institute is required to provide TEQSA with a revised workforce plan for its higher education operations. The workforce plan must identify recruitment strategies, discipline needs, academic and career development strategies incorporating scholarly activity, appropriate full-time to casual staffing ratios and key implementation dates for the plan. Casual staffing ratios must be calculated based on the methodology set out on page 19 of the TEQSA Risk Assessment Framework (Version 2.1) document.

Condition 3:

Within three months of the date of the imposition of this condition, Kent Institute must:

a) ensure that its course development and review policies explicitly provide for the development of a structured approach to engaging students in intellectual inquiry into theoretical developments and controversies consistent with the level and discipline of the course of study.

b) provide TEQSA with evidence of the application of this development of a structured approach in the context of at least one of Kent Institute's accredited courses of study. This evidence must include, but is not limited to, evidence that the approach has been considered, discussed and approved at a meeting of Kent Institute's Academic Board.

Course accreditation and conditions on registration

Report on accreditation of one higher education course of study offered by Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd (formerly The Centre of Academic Excellence Pty Ltd)

TEQSA has agreed to orders made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under which the Bachelor of Information Technology higher education course of study, under section 49 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), be accredited to be offered by Kent Institute Australia Pty Ltd ('Kent Institute') until 1 June 2021:

These orders also involve the imposition of conditions on the registration of Kent Institute under subsection 32(1) of the TEQSA Act. A copy of the conditions is available at Attachment 1. The course accreditation covers delivery at all Australian sites.

Background to Decision

Kent Institute applied to TEQSA for accreditation of its Bachelor of Information Technology higher education course of study under Section 46 of the TEQSA Act.

A TEQSA delegate considered Kent Institute's application and made a decision to reject the application for accreditation, sending Kent Institute a Statement of Reasons setting out details of why the TEQSA delegate decided to reject the application for accreditation of the course of study.

The TEQSA delegate made this decision on the basis that they were not satisfied that the course met the following Provider Course Accreditation Standards (PCAS):

• PCAS 1.2, in relation to course development, including development and assessment of English Language Proficiency (ELP);
• PCAS 2.1 and 2.3, in relation to the adequacy of resources available to support students, taking into account expected growth; and
• PCAS 4.4, in relation to effective mechanisms to identify and support students at risk of not progressing academically.

The TEQSA delegate also determined that Kent was at risk of not meeting the following PCAS in relation to the course of study: 1.7, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.3 and 5.4.

Kent Institute applied for an internal review of the decision to reject the application for accreditation of the course of study. No decision was made by TEQSA prior to the required date for internal review under subsection 186(2) of the TEQSA Act, meaning that TEQSA had taken to have affirmed the decision to reject the application for internal review.

Kent Institute applied for a review of TEQSA's deemed affirmation of the rejection of its application for accreditation at the AAT.

Main Reasons for Decision

After reviewing the material submitted by Kent Institute and participating in mediation with Kent Institute, TEQSA was satisfied that Kent Institute's Bachelor of Information Technology course of study meets the Threshold Standards. However TEQSA considered that there were risks in relation to:

1. Development of the requisite levels of English language proficiency (PCAS 1.2), on the basis of concerns about Kent Institute's student perform;
2. Engagement in intellectual inquiry consistent with the nature, level and expected learning outcomes of the course (PCAS 1.7), on the basis of an "ad hoc" approach to the presentation of theory and current controversies;
3. Adequacy of the existing facilities to meet student demand (PCAS 2.1);
4. Adequacy of library facilities (PCAS 2.2);
5. Adequacy of staffing (PCAS 4.1);
6. Staff scholarship (PCAS 4.2);
7. Inconsistency in student outcomes between Melbourne and Sydney (PCAS 5.3);
8. Monitoring and acting on student performance (PCAS 5.4).

On this basis, TEQSA agreed that it was appropriate to substitute TEQSA's initial decision to not grant the application with the decision to accredit the Bachelor of Information Technology until 1 June 2021 and to impose a number of conditions on Kent Institute's provider registration (see Attachment 1).

The conditions on registration are designed to address risks against the same Provider Course Accreditation Standards listed above in relation to TEQSA's reasons for initially deciding not to grant Kent Institute's application for accreditation of the Bachelor of Information Technology course of study.

TEQSA proposed to the AAT that the risks identified in the course accreditation be addressed by the imposition of conditions on registration. The AAT subsequently made orders in accordance with an agreement between TEQSA and Kent Institute to impose these conditions on registration.

Attachment 1

Conditions imposed on the registration of Kent Institute pursuant to subsection 32(1) of the TEQSA Act:

Condition 1:

Kent Institute must arrange for an independent and external review of the library and learning resources provided by Kent Institute for students of Kent Institute's higher education courses delivered in Sydney and Melbourne. Kent Institute must:

a) obtain TEQSA's approval of the identity of the reviewer before making an appointment.

b) provide TEQSA with the report arising from the review no later than 30 June 2017.

c) provide TEQSA with an implementation plan dealing with any recommendations from the review, together with evidence that the implementation plan has been discussed, considered and approved by Kent Institute's Academic Board by 31 July 2017.

Condition 2:

Within three months of the date of the imposition of this condition, Kent Institute is required to provide TEQSA with a revised workforce plan for its higher education operations. The workforce plan must identify recruitment strategies, discipline needs, academic and career development strategies incorporating scholarly activity, appropriate full-time to casual staffing ratios and key implementation dates for the plan. Casual staffing ratios must be calculated based on the methodology set out on page 19 of the TEQSA Risk Assessment Framework (Version 2.1) document.

Condition 3:

Within three months of the date of the imposition of this condition, Kent Institute must:

a) ensure that its course development and review policies explicitly provide for the development of a structured approach to engaging students in intellectual inquiry into theoretical developments and controversies consistent with the level and discipline of the course of study.

b) provide TEQSA with evidence of the application of this development of a structured approach in the context of at least one of Kent Institute's accredited courses of study. This evidence must include, but is not limited to, evidence that the approach has been considered, discussed and approved at a meeting of Kent Institute's Academic Board.