Re-accreditation 12 December 2017
Renewal of course accreditation
Report on renewal of accreditation of two higher education courses of study offered by Melbourne Polytechnic
A delegate of TEQSA has renewed, under section 56 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011 (the TEQSA Act), the accreditation of the following higher education courses of study offered by Melbourne Polytechnic for a period of four years until 12 December 2021:
- Associate Degree of Hospitality Management
- Bachelor of Hospitality Management
TEQSA has imposed, under section 53 of the TEQSA Act, one condition on the accreditation of both courses:
By 30 November 2018, Melbourne Polytechnic must provide to TEQSA, evidence that demonstrates it benchmarks the academic standards intended to be achieved by students and the standards actually achieved by students in the course(s) of study against similar accredited courses of study offered by other higher education providers.
This evidence is to include details of the courses and institutions selected for comparison and examples of action taken as a result of analysis of the data. The decision covers course delivery at all Australian sites.
Main reasons for the decision
- The recommendation to impose a condition complies with the risk of proportionate regulation, and took account of the decision to cease delivery of both courses in Hong Kong. While there is ongoing concern about Melbourne Polytechnic's ability to demonstrate quality governance arrangements through its course development and review processes, the condition is focussed on the identified area at risk of non-compliance. The condition will give Melbourne Polytechnic an opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that it has satisfactorily addressed the risks discussed above. Accordingly, consideration was given that the condition is proportionate to the risks of failing to comply with the Threshold Standards.
- Similarly, the decision to accredit the courses for a period of four years is a response to the provider's history of risk associated with course development and review and a failure to adequately demonstrate implementation benchmarking arrangements. In particular, the four year accreditation period is intended to provide an opportunity for it to address the risks of non-compliance. On this basis, a four year accreditation period is both necessary and proportionate to the risks of non-compliance with the Threshold Standards.