Harman_Repositioning QAs and Accreditation in Australian HE.pdf

7/28/2019 Harman_Repositioning QAs and Accreditation in Australian HE.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harmanrepositioning-qas-and-accreditation-in-australian-hepdf 1/120

Repositioning Quality Assurance and

Accreditation in AustralianHigher Education

Grant Harman

V Lynn Meek

Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy

University of New England

00/2

May 2000

Evaluations and Investigations Programme Higher Education Division

Department of Education,Training and Youth Affairs

Instructions for pdf navigation• Use the arrows on the Acrobat menu bar to navigate forwards or backwards page by page

• Alternatively, use the arrow icons on your keyboard to navigate through the document.

• To enlarge the viewing screen either: – use the magnifying glass by clicking on the area you wish to enlarge or by forming

a marquee over the area you wish to view (ie. hold the mouse button down and

drag the magnifying glass over the area); or

– use the view options menu bar at the bottom of the Acrobat screen.

• To pan out from the page, hold down the option button on your keyboard to change the

+ve symbol on the magnifying glass to a –ve symbol , then click the mouse.

• To search for a word or phrase use the binoculars icon on the menu bar.

• The Contents pages are live, ie. if you click on a topic you will go to that page.

• You can return to the Contents page by clicking your mouse on ‘Contents’ on the top of

each page.

CONTENTS



CONTENTS

© Commonwealth of Australia 2000

ISBN 0 642 23992 4

ISBN 0 642 23993 2 (Online version)

DETYA No. 6474.HERC 00A

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the

Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without

permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction

and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo,

GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601.

This report is funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Programme of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of

the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.



iii

Repositioning Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Australian Higher Education

Contents

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

2 Quality assurance and accreditation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Quality and higher education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8The concept of quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Related concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Accreditation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Main quality assurance approaches and methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Concluding comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

3 Australian higher education providers and current arrangements for accreditation and quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . .29

International education enrolments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Current accreditation arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Special protection for international students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

4 The changing quality environment and the Modern Australian Model . .53

The changing quality environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53The Modern Australian Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62Other options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

5 Accreditation of courses and institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73Responsibility for accreditation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74Greater uniformity of legislation, criteria and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Reporting on accreditation of institutions and courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Other compliance functions for accrediting agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79Staffing and resourcing of State and Territory accreditation agencies . . . . . . .80Links between accreditation and quality assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

6 Quality assurance and improvement plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81Comments on suggested model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Who should require and publish plans and links with institutional audits? . . . .83

7 Quality audits and a new quality agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85Characteristics of and criteria for the new mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86Legal basis and structure of new agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91Preferred model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92Review teams will report to the Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

Appendix A Project brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

Appendix B List of interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

TABLES AND ACRONYMS



iv


TablesTable 2.1 Main approaches and methodologies at the national level 17 Table 3.1 Higher education accredited awards offered by private providers 31Table 3.2 Total ‘off-shore’ student enrolments of

major higher education providers, 1998 34Table 3.3 Largest off-shore enrolments in particular countries

by institutions, 1998 34Table 3.4 Legislation providing for accreditation of courses and institutions 35Table 3.5 Legislation relevant to the establishment and operation

of Australian universities 40Table 3.6 Summary of legislative protection offered nationally

to Australian universities 41

Acronyms AAU Academic Audit Unit

ANTA Australian National Training Authority

AQF Australian Qualifications Framework

AVCC Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee

CNAA Council for National Academic Awards

CNE Comite National d’Evaluation

CRUI Italian Standing Conference of Rectors

DETYA Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council of England

NOOSR National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition

MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training

and Youth Affairs

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

RAE Research Assessment Exercise

RTO Registered Training Organisation

TAFE Technical and Further Education

VET Vocational Education and Training

VSNU Association of Cooperating Universities of the Netherlands

CONTENTS



v


Executive summary

Introduction1. This report has been prepared for the Commonwealth Department

of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) to assist in

developing an improved national approach to both quality assurance

and accreditation. The current arrangements are inadequate and

Australia needs a more rigorous quality assurance and accreditation

system: to protect the international reputation of our higher education;

for public accountability purposes; to inform student choice; and to

promote and improve quality processes and outcomes as well as

disseminate good practice.

2. Various models for a new approach to quality assurance and

accreditation have been reviewed, including refinement of the

current Australian model, the recently modified New Zealand model,

the new United Kingdom model, the model used by the Vocational

Education and Training (VET) system in Australia and a ‘Modern

Australian Model’.

3. The Modern Australian Model provides separate arrangements for

both institutions which have been given power to accredit their own

courses and for non-self accrediting providers. For institutions with

power to accredit their own courses, the main requirements will be:

(a) rigorous scrutiny of financial and quality aspects before founding

legislation is passed or other authorisation is given; (b) annual

publication of Quality Assurance and Improvement Plans for the

forthcoming triennium; (c) a quality audit of each institution every

five years following a detailed self-assessment; and (d) compliance

with any additional measures which may be necessary to ensure the

maintenance of acceptable high standards of degrees. For non self-

accrediting providers, the main features may include: (a) rigorous

scrutiny of provider capacity before accreditation; and (b) review of

provider performance and accredited courses every five years.

4. The task for the project was to develop the Modern Australian Model

as an alternative to the other four models; advise under whose

authority it should be run and whether a legislative base is needed;

assess whether it would be sensible and appropriate to make use

of the AQF; elaborate the possible nature of the five yearly

CONTENTS



vi


self-assessments for self-accrediting institutions; comment on the

desirability of focussing on outcomes and standards as well as

processes; consider how to achieve rigour and independence whileretaining the cooperation and confidence of universities; and advise

on the role of professional associations within the model and the

nature of the audit of the courses of non self-accrediting providers.

We were requested to evaluate the Modern Australian Model against

the following criteria: credibility; effectiveness; ability to provide

legal clarity for students and providers; ability to promote and

enhance improvement and good practice; how well the model could

build on the key features of the current system and possibly exploit

the role of professional associations in accrediting courses; minimum

bureaucracy; and cost.

Quality assurance and accreditation5. Quality assurance in higher education is defined as systematic

management and assessment procedures adopted by a higher

education institution or system to monitor performance and to ensure

achievement of quality outputs or improved quality. Quality assurance

aims to give stakeholders confidence about the management of quality and the outcomes achieved.

6. Accreditation refers to a process of assessment and review which

enables a higher education course or institution to be recognised

or certified as meeting appropriate standards. In Australia, the term

accreditation has developed three specialist meanings: a process of

review or assessment conducted by a government agency to enable

a Minister or approved authority to recognise and approve a higher

education institution or course; a process of review carried out by

a government registration body to enable graduates of particularcourses to practise in the particular State or Territory; and a process

of assessment and recognition carried out professional associations.

In this report, we are primarily concerned with the first usage.

7. Quality in the context of higher education can be defined as a

judgement about the level of goal achievement and the value and

worth of that achievement. It is also a judgement about the degree to

which activities or outputs have desirable characteristics, according to

some norm or against particular specified criteria or objectives.

CONTENTS



vii


8. Over the past decade, extensive experimentation has taken place

internationally with quality assurance and how it is managed.

The literature reporting these developments points to tremendous variety in approaches and methods. The main approaches can be

summarised under the following headings: the agency or unit with

responsibility for the management of quality assurance; participation

in reviews and other activities; the main methodologies employed;

the focus of quality assurance activities; the purposes of such

activities; and reporting and/or follow-up.

9. The most common pattern at national level is for responsibility to lie

with a specialised government agency, or with the central department

responsible for higher education coordination. In a small number of countries, however, responsibility lies with an agency set up by higher

education institutions themselves.

10. An important variation between quality assurance systems is whether

participation is voluntary or compulsory. Many countries began with

institutional audits on a voluntary basis. Generally, however, with

national reviews of disciplines, participation is compulsory and, even

when participation is voluntary, strong moral and professional

pressures usually produce in a high level of participation.

11. Most quality assurance mechanisms depend on one or a combination

of a limited number of methodologies, the most important of which are

self-studies or self-evaluation; peer review by panels of experts; use of

relevant statistical information and perf ormance indicators; and surveys

of key groups, such as students, graduates and employers. At the

national level, the most common forms of assessment are ‘horizontal’

reviews of disciplines and ‘vertical’ evaluations of institutions.

12. Quality assurance programs serve a variety of purposes but generally

their primary purposes are a combination of public accountability,

efforts to ensure credibility, improvement and renewal. In some

cases, there is a gap between stated purposes and actual purposes,

and frequently there is tension between accountability and

improvement purposes.

13. Reporting and follow-up activities are important, with a major

challenge being to devise fair and effective methods likely to lead

to improvements without damaging the institution being reviewed.

Various approaches are used with regard to the distribution of

reports. In some cases, reports are provided solely to the institution

concerned but increasingly the practice is to make the results more

widely available.

CONTENTS



viii


Higher education providers and current arrangements

14. For the purposes of this study, Australian higher education providerscan be categorized into five distinct groups: public universities and

other public higher education institutions established under State,

Territory and Commonwealth legislation; non-government institutions

which operate under their own legislation and have self-accrediting

powers; institutions not established by legislation but who have

been given government approval to operate; private providers

whose courses have been accredited by State or Territory

accrediting agencies; and private providers whose courses have

not yet been accredited.

15. Accreditation of higher education institutions and courses is under

the control of State and Territory Governments who view this

responsibility as flowing from their responsibilities for education under

the Commonwealth constitution. Generally, the relevant legislation

makes provision for private providers to secure accreditation and

approval to offer courses. In other cases, legislation provides for

accreditation of both institutions and courses.

16. The considerable differences between the provisions of State and

Territory legislation and the criteria and processes constitute a majorproblem needing attention. In a number of cases, legislation provides

control over the use of the terms ‘university’ and ‘degree’, and over

degree titles. The most detailed legislative controls operate in Victoria,

New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. Additional protection is

afforded with regard to the establishment and recognition of

universities by other Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation.

17. Recently the States and Territories have agreed on procedures for

considering applications and authorisation to offer higher education

courses in two or more States and Territories, and operationalguidelines to achieve this were endorsed by MCEETYA in April 1999.

18. The current system of quality assurance operates at a number of levels

and includes the activities of professional associations and associations

and networks set up by groups of universities for benchmarking and

other quality assurance purposes.

19. Internal quality assurance processes in universities include: assessment

of new courses and units of study; reviews of courses, units and

departments; student evaluation of teaching; use of external examiners

for higher degree research theses and sometimes bachelors honourstheses; surveys of graduates and employers; use of performance

CONTENTS



ix


indicators; benchmarking and participation in benchmarking networks;

and special projects for the improvement of teaching and special

awards for teaching excellence.

20. The current national quality assurance mechanisms include: reports by

universities on quality assurance and improvement plans;

encouragement of innovation and good teaching; and publication of

Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions.

21. Various professional bodies conduct accreditation of professional

courses in fields such as medicine, law, engineering and architecture.

Professional associations have formed a peak body, the Australian

Council of Professions.

22. Special Commonwealth mechanisms, consisting of legislation and a

register of courses, provide protection for international students. For

example, The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of

Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 helps ensure that only

quality courses are offered to foreign students studying in Australia.

23. While there are various desirable characteristics of the current quality

assurance and accreditation arrangements, at the same time there are

clear weaknesses that need attention. The major weaknesses in

quality assurance is lack of a national agency that can publicly vouchfor the quality of Australian higher education while with regard to

accreditation there is need for uniform approaches and criteria across

States and Territories and a better system of reporting and providing

public access to information concerning which courses and institutions

have been accredited.

Changing quality environment and the

Modern Australian Model24. Important recent changes have taken place in the quality assurance

environment. These can be categorised under the headings of:

globalisation and changes in educational technology; international

recognition of qualifications; recent changes in quality assurance in

other industrialised countries; new quality assurance arrangements in

‘off-shore’ education countries; the needs of Australia’s education

export industry; increased accountability pressures at home; incidents

with private providers and increases in the number of private

providers; and complaints from applicants seeking accreditation.

CONTENTS



x


25. The Modern Australian Model of quality assurance and accreditation

has many strengths. It makes important distinctions between the

functions of accreditation and quality assurance, and between thepossible treatment of self-accrediting institutions and non-self

accrediting providers. DETYA documentation specifies that quality

assurance and accreditation mechanisms should satisfy a number

of criteria: the mechanisms relating to self-accrediting institutions

should not be solely at their discretion; there needs to be some

external review or audit of the claims made by institutions about

quality and standards; the mechanisms should be credible with

international and domestic interest groups and be able to protect the

international reputation of Australian awards; the mechanisms should

help satisfy Australian taxpayers of value for money; any audit

mechanism should have rigour, but at the same time be cost effective,

not unnecessarily intrusive and be able to retain the cooperation of

public universities; and the mechanisms should provide legal clarity

for students and providers and be able to promote good practice and

facilitate improvement.

26. Refinement of the current Australian model of accreditation and quality

assurance would provide valuable improvements but Australia’s

arrangements would still fall far behind international good practice

and do little to provide additional safeguards for the education export

industry, or to lend additional international credibility to Australian

awards. The recently modified New Zealand Model provides for a

national government agency but there is some uncertainty about how

successful will be the plan for the new agency to approve various

accrediting bodies. The new United Kingdom model is still developing

its procedures but to date its proposals have been somewhat

controversial and have yet to secure support from the well-established

universities. The current VET model of accreditation and quality

assurance is now well accepted in the VET sector and widely supported by industry but this model does not appear suitable for

the higher education sector.

27. Important models not canvassed in DETYA documentation are the

Dutch and French models of quality assurance. The Dutch model

is based on a well-organised program of disciplinary reviews, while

the French model uses both disciplinary reviews and institutional

audits. The Dutch program is operated by the VSNU, the association

representing the heads of Dutch universities, while the French

program is the responsibility of a special government agency.

CONTENTS



xi


Accreditation of courses and institutions

28. Any process of accreditation would need to be concerned primarily with: approval for new universities to operate, to use the name

university, and to offer degrees and other awards; approval and

accreditation of courses of study leading to degrees and other awards

by other higher education providers; and re-accreditation of

institutions and awards.

29. There is strong support for the proposition that accreditation is a

matter for government and not the higher education sector, and

that the States and Territories should continue to exercise their

responsibilities in this area. Continuation and extension of the present work being undertaken by the MCEETYA Multilateral Joint Planning

Committee seems likely to produce a professional national approach

to accreditation.

30. To date the Multilateral Committee has put most of its efforts into

developing a common approach to the accreditation of universities.

This has raised issues about the distinguishing characteristics of

universities today in Australia and what criteria should be used in

accrediting new and overseas universities. There differences in views

over use of the titles of ‘university’ and ‘degree’. State and Territory officials see value in maintaining and strengthening current controls

over these titles.

31. Perhaps more important for the Multilateral Committee will be to

develop uniform protocols for the recognition of new and overseas

universities and agreement on the criteria to be applied. There

appears to be agreement that criteria should include topics such as

financial viability, the legal basis of the institution, and the processes

of governance, internal quality assurance and accountability but less

agreement about whether the criteria should include quantitativeindicators with regard to staff, buildings and facilities, and library

holdings and specialised laboratories. Other issues that need

attention include: protocols and procedures for the accreditation of

institutions other than universities; whether the recognition of new

and overseas universities should automatically carry with it the rights

of self-accrediting powers; whether all institutions need some form

of accreditation before their courses can be accredited; requirements

with regard to ‘out-state’ Australian institutions operating in other

States and Territories; whether accredited institutions should be

required to seek special approval to offer courses to internationalstudents at special international student campuses; whether

CONTENTS



xii


universities and other self accrediting institutions need special

approval to enter into franchise arrangements to offer higher education

courses with non accredited institutions such as VET providers; and whether legislation in all States and Territories should provide for both

the accreditation of institutions and courses.

Quality assurance and improvement plans32. Continuation and strengthening of the current requirements of the

Commonwealth with regard to institutional quality assurance and

improvement plans appears to be a well-conceived and sensible

strategy. Good management practice requires that all institutions

should have in place appropriate quality assurance and improvement

plans, and submission of these to some outside body provides useful

discipline for institutions to keep plans up to date. Such plans should

cover all major aspects of operations, including ‘off-shore’ efforts and

distance education offered internationally.

33. While some universities have made major advances in benchmarking,

this development has not been uniform across the sector and that it

may be helpful to provide additional assistance. Institutions should be

encouraged to document in detail their monitoring and quality assurance procedures for ‘off-shore’ efforts.

34. With regard to quality assurance plans currently required by DETYA, it

will be important that discussions take place with any new quality

assurance agency to ensure that DETYA requirements do not in

conflict with any documentation requirements for institutional audits.

Quality audits and a new quality agency 35. A non-intrusive and sensibly conceived quality assurance mechanism

involving both the higher education sector and the State and

Territories seems likely to attract considerable support. Certainly there

is wide appreciation of some of the strong influences that require

establishment of a new national mechanism.

36. One important issue is the legal basis of any new agency, the

governance structures to be employed and its accountability

arrangements. In our discussions four main models were identified:

a Ministerial Committee set up by the Commonwealth Minister;

CONTENTS



xiii


an agency established by Commonwealth legislation; an agency

established by joint Commonwealth and State legislation; and an

agency set up as a company, possibly responsible to MCEETYA.

37. Our preferred model for the new quality assurance mechanism and

agency is as follows:

• A new quality assurance mechanism should be established as a

joint Commonwealth, State/Territory, and higher education initiative

with the aim of strengthening public accountability, protecting

academic standards and the reputation of Australian higher edu-

cation providers and awards, and promoting good practice in

quality assurance. We suggest that the new mechanism should

be called the Higher Education Quality Assurance Council.

• The central function of the Council will be conduct of program

of institutional reviews or audits. Review teams will carry out site

visits, following completion of self-assessments carried out by

institutions, which will include reviews of the processes of

managing quality including monitoring performance and

benchmarking. Institutions will provide review teams with a

report of their self-assessments, together with documentation

on institutional mission and objectives, quality assurance and

improvement plans, details on methods used to monitor andbenchmark achievements and the results of monitoring and

benchmarking. Participating institutions will be reviewed every

five years.

• The Council will be established as an independent agency, at ‘arms

length’ from both government (Commonwealth and State) and from

the higher education sector. It will be governed by a board consist-

ing of an independent Chair, two Commonwealth nominees, two

members representing the States and Territories, two representatives

of the higher education sector and one representative drawn fromthose professional associations involved in accreditation within the

higher education sector. The Executive Director will be an ex-

officio member and the board will have the power to coopt up to

two additional members with special expertise in academic audits

and assessment. Commonwealth representatives will be appointed

by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, while the

two State and Territory representatives will be appointed by

MCEETYA. Members will serve four year terms.

CONTENTS



xiv


• Funding for the work of the Council will come from annual grants

from the Commonwealth and from the States and Territories,

and annual membership fees paid by individual higher educationinstitutions who wish to participate in the program of reviews.

• The terms of reference of the Council will be as follows:

– to review within participating higher education institutions

the mechanisms for quality assurance, monitoring performance

and academic standards, and enhancing quality;

– to publish the reports of reviews;

– to report publicly from time to time on the effectiveness of

quality assurance procedures in participating institutions, the

extent to which procedures ensure academic standards andreflect good practice in maintaining and improving quality,

and other relevant matters;

– to identify and disseminate good practice in quality assurance in

higher education; and

– to undertake and sponsor studies related to effective quality

assurance management practices and academic standards in

higher education.

• In carrying out reviews, review teams appointed by the Council will

focus particularly on:

– appropriateness of quality assurance and improvement plans in

relation to institutional contexts and missions;

– rigour of the mechanisms employed to review courses and

academic organisational units, and monitor performance against

institutional plans;

– effectiveness in monitoring outcomes and in benchmarking, both

nationally and internationally; and

– success in communicating the results of the monitoring outcomes

and academic standards to stakeholders.

Review teams will report to the Council.

• Each year the Council will draw up a program of reviews for the

following year, after consultation with institutions likely to be

reviewed.

• Review panels, generally of no more than five members, will be

appointed by the Council. Members of review teams will be drawn

from the higher education sector, the Commonwealth and the

States. Members may also be drawn from the professions andprofessional associations, and from business and industry.

CONTENTS



xv


Review panels will normally visit institutions for two consecutive

days after the institution has completed a self-assessment and

supplied other documentation as required. Institutions offeringcourses ‘off-shore’ for international students should document in

detail the procedures followed for safeguarding and monitoring

quality, and the results of any assessments.

• Following the visit of the review team, the draft report will be

forwarded to the institution for comment. Once the report is

completed it will be considered by the Council and then published.

Copies will be provided free to DETYA, State and Territory accred-

iting agencies, all participating higher education institutions, and

relevant professional associations. For each review, a single report

will be prepared and published.

• Should a review reveal serious weaknesses, the institution

concerned will be given up to 12 months to correct weaknesses

prior to a supplementary review. Failure to rectify weaknesses

would be a matter for DETYA to address (in the case of Common-

wealth funded institutions) or for the relevant State or Territory

accrediting agency. One possible action would be to remove the

name of the institution from the AQF list of accredited institutions

until such time that as minimum standards are achieved.

• Every effort should be made to encourage private universities and

non self-accrediting institutions to participate in the review program.

• Prior to arrangements for the Council being finalised, the higher

education sector should be consulted about the proposed terms of

reference for the Council, the composition of the Council’s board

and the method of conducting reviews.

CONTENTS




1 Introduction

1.1 This report has been prepared for the Commonwealth Department of

Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) to assist in developing

an improved national approach to both quality assurance and accred-

itation. The current arrangements are judged to be inadequate and

DETYA considers that Australia needs a more rigorous quality assur-

ance and accreditation system:

• to protect our international reputation in respect of both the

quality of our educational processes and our standards;• for public accountability purposes, particularly to satisfy the

taxpayer about value for money and that government subsidies

are supporting education activities of an appropriate standard;

• to inform student choice, especially in the light of diversity of

offerings; and

• to promote and improve quality processes and outcomes at

individual institutions as well as disseminate good practice, leading

to overall system improvement (DETYA Project Brief 1999, p 3).

1.2 Various models for a new approach to quality assurance and accred-itation have been reviewed, including refinement of the current

Australian model, the recently modified New Zealand model, the new

United Kingdom model, the model used by the Vocational Education

and Training (VET) system in Australia and a ‘Modern Australian Model’.

1.3 Refinement of the current model could include strengthening the

internal processes within universities through benchmarking and

accreditation by external agencies as well as some modification to

existing legislation relating to accreditation of new providers and new

courses, and modifications of guidelines relating to Corporations Law.

1.4 The newly proposed modified arrangements for quality assurance in

New Zealand will require providers to be quality assured through a

recognised quality validation process in order to be eligible for

government funding. The Quality Assurance Authority of New

Zealand, which will have responsibility for the quality of publicly

funded tertiary education, will grant recognition to those bodies that

are able to provide credible and rigorous quality validation processes

in the sector, rather than carrying out quality audits itself. Presumably

the New Zealand universities may seek to have quality validationcarried out by the Academic Audit Unit which was established in the

early 1990s (Malcom 1993).

CONTENTS



2


1.5 In the United Kingdom, quality assurance is the responsibility of the

Quality Assurance Agency which was established in 1997, following

submission of the Dearing Report (Higher Education for the LearningSociety 1997) to the Blair Government. The Quality Assurance Agency

has responsibility to assure

• the standards of awards;

• program outcomes against standards; and

• the quality of learning opportunities.

The new approach requires independent verification of programs

delivered to ensure that:

• they achieve their intended outcomes; and• student achievement meets the standards required of the institution

for its awards by reference to subject benchmarks and the views of

accrediting bodies.

It is expected, for example, that Quality Assurance Agency reviewers

will interact with subject/departmental review processes within

universities, review overall academic management, and conduct

periodic audits of overseas and other collaborative arrangements.

While use will be made of members of panels from universities and

the professions, a considerable amount of audit effort will be carriedout by professional staff of the Agency.

1.6 The model of accreditation and quality assurance for the VET sector

has been developed and further refined in recent years, following

establishment of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA).

Under the Australian Recognition Framework that came into effect

on 1 January 1998, initial registration of a training organisation is

dependent on demonstrated capacity to meet National Core and

relevant Product/Service Standards, and any other requirement of the

relevant State or Territory. Continuing registration is dependent uponcompliance measured through monitoring and audit. The Standards

represent the core requirement, which the organisation needs to

demonstrate to the recognition authority to become registered.

Training Packages, which are developed and validated by industry, are

endorsed nationally by the National Training Framework Committee of

ANTA and by Education and Training Ministers. The Standards also

specify national competency standards and assessment guidelines, and

Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) outcomes. Under the

Australian Recognition Framework, there is also provision for the

accreditation of courses where no relevant Training Packages exist.

CONTENTS



3


1.7 The Modern Australian Model for quality assurance and accreditation

that has been developed by DETYA seeks to build on current and

recent practice. It provides separate arrangements for both institutions which have been given power to accredit their own courses and for

non-self accrediting providers. For institutions with power to accredit

their own courses, the main requirements will be:

• rigorous scrutiny of financial and quality aspects before founding

legislation is passed or other authorisation is given;

• annual publication of Quality Assurance and Improvement Plans

for the forthcoming triennium;

• a quality audit of each institution every five years following a

detailed self-assessment; and

• compliance with any additional measures which may be necessary

to ensure the maintenance of acceptable high standards of degrees.

1.8 For non self-accrediting providers, the main features of the approach

may include:

• rigorous scrutiny of provider capacity before course

accreditation; and

• review of provider performance and accredited courses every

five years.1.9 The task for our project was to develop Model 5 (a Modern Australian

Model) as an alternative to the other four models; advise under whose

authority it should be run; advise whether the framework would need

a legislative base; assess whether it would be sensible and appropriate

to make use of the AQF; elaborate the possible nature of the five

yearly self-assessments for self-accrediting institutions; comment on

the desirability of focussing more than in the past on outcomes and

standards as well as processes; consider how to achieve rigour and

independence for the process while retaining the cooperation andconfidence of universities; and advise on the role of professional

associations within the model and the nature of the audit of the

courses of non self-accrediting providers. More specifically, we were

asked to make a comprehensive assessment of the Modern Australian

Model against the following criteria:

• Credibility (how well the model would be credible with inter-

national and domestic interest groups and potential customers,

and the marketability of the arrangements);

• Effectiveness (ability to address learning outcome standards as wellas quality assurance processes);

CONTENTS



4


• Ability to provide legal clarity for students and providers;

• Ability to promote and enhance improvement and good practice;

• How well the model could build on the key features of the

Australian higher education system, where universities are

established under State/Territory/Commonwealth legislation as

autonomous institutions with the power to accredit their own

courses, and where higher education courses developed and

delivered by other providers are accredited by State/Territory

bodies;

• How well the model could exploit the role of professional

associations in accrediting courses;

• Minimum prescription and bureaucracy; and

• Cost (DETYA Project Brief 1999, pp 8–9).

1.10 The brief required consultation with key stakeholders (eg the

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC), State accrediting

bodies, the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR)

and professional associations) as appropriate. A copy of the project

brief is reproduced in Appendix 1.

1.11 In carrying out the project, we have interviewed a range of key

stakeholders, reviewed relevant literature and analysed key documentsto which we gained access. A list of interviewees is provided in

Appendix 2. Documents analysed included Commonwealth and

State government reports and legislation; materials supplied by ANTA

and the Australian Qualifications Framework Board Secretariat;

materials from the Ministerial Council of Employment and Education,

Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA); materials from the AVCC

and professional associations; and material supplied by Universities

and other higher education providers. As researchers, we acknowledge

the generous assistance we received from many individuals and

organisations.

1.12 For the purpose of this report, quality assurance in higher education

is defined as systematic management and assessment procedures

adopted by an higher education institution or system to monitor

performance against objectives and to ensure achievement of quality

outputs or improved quality. Quality assurance enables key stake-

holders to have confidence about the management of quality and the

outcomes achieved. Stakeholders are individuals and groups who have

a major interest in the higher education institution or system and its

achievements. This definition implies that missions, goals and objec-tives will be clearly specified and available to stakeholders; that

CONTENTS



5


appropriate procedures will be in place to monitor and review

performance; that the results of monitoring and review will be

available to all stakeholders; and that mechanisms will be in placeto ensure improvements in performance and the adoption of good

practice. In any higher education system, it would be assumed that

quality assurance mechanisms would address particular issues of

concern, such as the quality of awards during a period of rapid

expansion in student numbers, or the quality of courses offered to

international students studying in Australia and for awards from an

Australian provider through some ‘off-shore’ arrangement.

1.13 In its generic form, accreditation refers to a process of assessment

and review which enables a higher education course or institutionto be recognised or certified as meeting appropriate standards.

In Australia, the term accreditation has developed three specialist

meanings. The first is of process a review or assessment conducted

by a government agency to enable a Minister or an approved

authority, acting under the authority of appropriate legislation, to

approve or recognise a higher education course and/or award as

being of an appropriate standard and being delivered in an approp-

riate manner. In some cases, accreditation of a higher education

institution means that from then on it is able to accredit or certify the

quality its own courses, while it other cases accredited institutions

must also seek accreditation for each course. A second specialist use

of the term accreditation in Australia is in relation to processes carried

out by a government registration body to enable graduates of

particular courses to practise in the State or Territory. A third specialist

use is in relation to assessment and recognition carried out profes-

sional associations in such areas as engineering, accounting, law and

architecture. If a particular course is accredited, its graduates will be

eligible for membership of the professional association. In this report

we are primarily concerned with the first specialised Australian usageoutlined above.

1.14 One important practical and theoretical question is the relationship

between quality assurance and accreditation. Internationally,

accreditation is often one of the main mechanisms of quality

assurance but, as already noted, this report is concerned primarily

with accreditation carried out by government agencies and relating in

the first instance to new providers and new courses. Quality

assurance, on the other hand, refers to processes of on-going review,

assessment and monitoring that should apply to all recognisedproviders in order to ensure that courses and awards are of a high

standard and that institutional monitoring of performance is effective.

CONTENTS



6


While the standards and criteria used in the assessment of institutions

and courses should inform quality assurance mechanisms, there is no

clear reason why the same agency should be responsible for bothaccreditation and quality assurance. At the same time it is obviously

desirable that Australia should have an overall consistent and robust

approach to both quality assurance and accreditation.

1.15 In Chapter 2, a more detailed discussion is provided of the concepts

of quality assurance and accreditation.

CONTENTS



7


Chapter 2

Quality assurance and accreditation2.1 This chapter explores in greater detail the concepts of quality

assurance and accreditation. It also comments on the concept of

quality and other concepts related to quality assurance and

accreditation. A final section reviews in summary form the main

approaches to the management of quality assurance at the national

level that have been adopted internationally over the past decade.

2.2 Quality and quality assurance have become key issues for higher

education internationally in the 1990s (Kells 1992; Kells and van Vught

1988; and Craft 1992 and 1994). In many countries, managers of

higher education systems and institutions are concerned about quality

and how to put in place appropriate quality assurance mechanisms.

Governments are concerned about the costs of providing credible

academic and professional awards and the need to ensure that

standards are maintained at an appropriate level, while rapid increases

in enrolments and often falling financial support per student unit raise

doubts about whether quality is being maintained. Quality issues

dominate the higher education debate in many countries, as ministers,

bureaucrats, employers and business interests become increasingly

concerned about the outputs of higher education institutions and the

suitability of graduates to meet the needs of employers. Many people

question whether their societies are getting real value for their massive

investment in higher education and urge the adoption by governments

of mechanisms to achieve more control over the work that higher

education institutions do. Quality and accountability thus havebecome key elements in the efforts of many countries to become and

remain internationally competitive in a world where interdependence

in trade is rapidly growing. Apart from this, there is more emphasis

on quality associated with increased mobility of professional and

skilled labour, and the greater need for recognition of qualifications

across national boundaries. As Craft (1994, p viii) points out:

‘globalisation’ and international migration mean that

academic and professional qualifications need to be ‘portable’

across national borders, and so both institutions and nation states are keen to learn more about each other’s proce d ure s

for assuring the quality of tertiary education prov i s i on.

CONTENTS



8


2.3 The main issues in the quality debate about higher education in many

countries are the maintenance and improvement of levels of teaching,

learning, research and scholarship; improvements in the quality andadaptability of graduates; how to define and measure quality;

management approaches likely to improve outcomes from universities

and colleges; the use of benchmarking and performance indicators;

and how to convince stakeholders that institutions and systems are

doing a competent job in ensuring quality outputs.

Quality and higher education2.4 In one sense, the quality debate in higher education is not new,

although in the past universities and government agencies used

different terms such as academic standards, standards of degrees and

diplomas, student assessment, and accountability (Harman 1994).

In the past too, the main issues in the quality debate were largely

about maintaining academic standards according to some national

or international norm, the maintenance and improvement of levels of

teaching and learning, and how to provide sufficient financial and

other resources to achieve quality higher education. Many of these

issues are still important today, but the new quality debate is largely about the achievement of quality outcomes; the establishment of

appropriate management processes to monitor achievement and the

extent to which specified goals and objectives are being met; assessing

the suitability of graduates for the workforce and professions; and

providing information to stakeholders in order to assure them of the

quality and credibility of outputs. One of the big differences between

the old quality debate and the new quality debate is that, while the

old was concerned largely about inputs and national and international

academic standards, the new is much more concerned about manage-

ment processes and their effectiveness, the assessment of outputs andmonitoring performance, and how well outputs meet employer and

other needs.

2.5 Various studies and papers produced over the past decade or so have

documented key aspects of the quality debate in OECD countries, and

in major geographic regions such as Western Europe and North

America (eg, Ball 1985; Sizer 1990; Frazer 1991; Neave 1991; Williams

1991; Anwyl 1992; Craft 1992; Lindsay 1992; van Vught and

Westerheijden 1992; Lindsay 1994; Craft 1994; and Harman 1996a).

CONTENTS



9


But quality is also becoming a major issue in the higher education

systems of Asia and the Pacific, although within the region there are

very considerable variations about how quality issues are perceivedand in the priorities that different governments and higher education

systems are giving to tackling quality problems.

The concept of quality 2.6 The recent international literature on quality and quality assurance

in higher education reveals considerable difficulties and ambiguities

in the definition of a number of key terms. This is not surprising as

quality deals with a number of complex notions. For example, in the

literature only in the widest sense is there broad agreement about

what quality is, and how to define a number of key concepts used

in the current debate about quality. Within many universities too,

there are often quite surprising variations of views about the essential

elements of quality, about what characteristics of institutional work are

regarded as being of the greatest value and why, and what constitutes

academic performance at the highest level and how such performance

can be recognised. Sometimes too there is disagreement within many

higher education institutions about what constitutes good teaching,and about which graduates have the most valued characteristics.

Apart from this confusion and lack of agreement, scholars interested

in researching quality issues differ significantly in their views about

key terms. Many see quality as a relative concept, meaningful only

from the perspective of particular judges at particular points of time,

measured against some either explicit or implicit standard or purpose.

But despite these differences in views, there is an increased degree of

consensus emerging about key terms. For this report we draw on this

growing consensus and set out a number of working definitions.

2.7 Apart from differences of views in the academic debate, managers

and experts in educational measurement for many years have been

wrestling with difficult technical questions about such matters as

measuring academic performance of students, comparing academic

standards over time and between different institutions, and devising

means to ensure that teaching in academic departments or institutions

is of consistently high quality.

2.8 By quality in the context of higher education, we mean a judgement

about the level of goal achievement and the value and worth of thatachievement. It is a judgement about the degree to which activities or

outputs have desirable characteristics, according to some norm or

CONTENTS



10


against particular specified criteria or objectives. Ball (1985) refers

to quality as ‘fitness for purpose.’ According to this definition, a course

of study in a higher education institution is of satisfactory quality when it conforms to the particular standards or levels of achievement

for the purpose it was designed. In the absence of any overall agreed

standards in a higher education system, it is necessary for institutions

to specify their mission, goals and objectives and then be evaluated

against these.

2.9 While the variety of different definitions of quality can be confusing

and frustrating, different perspectives on quality have their positive

aspects. The value of different perspectives can be well illustrated

from the work of the American scholar, Robert Birnbaum, who in astudy of American college presidents reports on three different views

of quality in higher education that he found in practice. (Birnbaum

1994). He describes these as the meritocratic, social, and individualistic

views of quality. With the meritocratic view, Birnbaum found that

college presidents assess quality in relation to conformity to some

institutional or universalistic professional or scholarly norm, and

so generally use the academic profession as a reference group.

Those presidents who take a social view of quality base their

judgements on assessment about the extent to which the institution

satisfies the needs of important constituencies and audiences -what

people have now come to refer to as the stakeholders. Thus the

reference point are the views of a particular community. Presidents

who take an individualistic view emphasise the contributions that the

institution makes to the personal growth of students, using the

individual learner as the reference point.

2.10 Lindsay (1992) has categorised key approaches differently, identifying

two distinct approaches to discussions of quality in higher education.

One approach, which he terms the ‘production-measurement’ view,

treats quality as a synonym for performance, and so discussions of

quality revolve around the definition and measurement of resources

and outcomes. The other approach, which Lindsay terms the ‘stake-

holder judgement’ view, is based on assessments by various key actors

involved in higher education. These assessments may incorporate

‘imponderable elements of our conceptions of educational processes

and outcomes, and their dependence on contested value positions’

(Lindsay 1992, pp 154-156).

CONTENTS



11


2.11 Middlehurst (1992) usefully identifies four different ways that the term

quality has been used in the recent higher education debate, primarily

in the United Kingdom. These are quality as a defining characteristicor attribute; quality as a grade of achievement; quality as a particularly

high level of performance or achievement which, by virtue of general

consensus and reasonable stability over time, comes to be seen as a

standard against which to judge others; and quality as fitness for

purpose achieved through performance that meets specifications.

Quality assurance2.12 The term quality assurance has come into the higher education

vocabulary only over the past decade or so. While there are many

definitions of quality assurance in the literature (eg, see Ball 1985;

Birnbaum 1994; Lindsay 1992; van Vught and Westerheijden 1992), in

essence, as already noted, quality assurance refers to systematic

management and assessment procedures adopted to monitor perform-

ance and achievements and to ensure achievement of specified quality

or improved quality. Some authors (eg Brennan 1997) prefer use of

the term quality assessment instead of term quality assurance.

However, while a great deal of effort in quality assurance relates toquality assessment, quality assurance in this report is thought of as a

broader term which embraces not only assessment but also other

activities including, for example, follow-up efforts aimed to achieve

improvement.

2.13 While the concept of quality assurance is new, many of the ideas

behind the concept are by no means new. What is new, however,

apart from the new language, is a more systematic and far reaching

approach to monitoring performance and ensuring that institutions

and systems have in place appropriate and effective mechanisms forreview and assessment, and for renewal and improvement. Compared

with past approaches, the new mechanisms also put much more

emphasis on external scrutiny, seeking the views of employers and

graduates and, in various ways, making the results of assessments

more widely available.

2.14 The quality assurance movement of the past decade has sprung from

a variety of factors. As already noted, particularly important have been

community and government concerns about academic standards and

the levels of achievements of graduates in a time of major expansionin student numbers associated with decreasing government funding

support per student unit. But the quality assurance movement has also

CONTENTS



12


been driven by the impact of increased international competitiveness,

the need for increased mobility of professional labour, demands for

greater accountability by public institutions which flows from theemergence of the ‘evaluative state’ (Neave 1997), concerns related to

the expansion of private higher education, and pressure from

employers and the professions for university courses to become more

relevant to work place needs.

2.15 Quality assurance has become a particularly important element in

those higher education systems which have adopted a self-regulation

approach to relationships between government and higher education.

With this approach, governments set the policy framework and steer

from some distance but put a major emphasis on monitoringperformance (van Vught (1994b). Thus quality assurance becomes

of vital importance. In addition, quality assurance becomes of great

importance in countries where, as a result of increased government

emphasis on competition, market forces and encouragement of private

providers, there are community concerns about the possibility of

quality being sacrificed in the search for profits.

2.16 Rajavaara (1998) has developed a typology of four different types

of quality assurance: political-administrative; citizen-based;

business-oriented; and professional. Under the political-administrativetype, the main approaches used are legislation, service standards and

quality indicators. Under the citizen-based type, the main approaches

are action groups concerned about quality and the introduction of

alternative social models. The business-oriented type is distinctively

different depending on Total Quality Management, ISO 9000, quality

awards and benchmarking, while the professional type depends

mainly on professional training and professional ethics, professional

audits, peer review and self evaluation.

Related concepts2.17 There are a number of related concepts that are frequently used in

discussion about quality. The most important of these are quality

control, quality audit, quality assessment, quality management and

self-study.

2.18 Quality control refers to the processes or mechanisms within an

institution or system used to ensure compliance with quality standards

or achieve improvements in performance. It is about evaluating andguaranteeing standards. The term appears to have been adapted from

CONTENTS



13


industry where quality inspectors or quality controllers, somewhat

independent of the main workforce, monitor the production process

and particularly the quality of outputs. Experience in industry hasshown that it is not sufficient to have an efficient quality monitoring

group, but rather the workforce as a whole needs to be convinced

of the importance of quality in order to achieve the highest levels

of production performance. In higher education, quality control can

focus on inputs, outputs, the mechanisms used to monitor quality,

or some combination of these.

2.19 Quality audit refers to the processes of external scrutiny used to

provide guarantees about the quality control mechanisms in place.

Quality audit is based on the ideas of self-study and peer review, andon the notion of a detailed report which becomes available to the

institution to assist in improving procedures and achieving enhanced

outputs. The concept was developed and popularised following the

establishment of an Academic Audit Unit in 1990 by the Committee of

Vice-Chancellors and Principals in the United Kingdom (Frazer 1991).

2.20 Quality assessment has come to mean a review or systematic exam-

ination, usually conducted externally, to determine whether quality

activities comply with planned arrangements and whether the

‘product’ (the educational process) is implemented effectively and issuitable for achieving the stated objectives. However, there are some

differences of opinion in the literature as to whether the focus is, or

should be, on the mechanisms to achieve quality, or the educational

process and outcomes, or all of these.

2.21 Quality management has come to refer to the management of quality

control and quality improvement, and to those aspects of the overall

management functions that determines and implements the quality

policy. (van Vught and Westerheijden 1992). It is also about the design

and maintenance of quality assurance mechanisms.

2.22 The term self-study has come from the work of American accreditation

agencies and refers to the internal preparation of detailed evaluation

document to be presented to an outside review panel who will visit

the institution and provide a written report. Many quality assurance

approaches put a major emphasis on a self-study or self-evaluation.

CONTENTS



14


Accreditation

2.23 The term accreditation in higher education originally came fromthe United States, but over the years many of the key ideas have

been adopted by professional associations and government agencies

internationally. This section will briefly review the development

of voluntary systems of accreditation in the United States and more

recently the development of accreditation by professional bodies

and government backed accreditation systems in Britain and

Commonwealth countries.

2.24 In the United States, for almost a century accreditation has been

associated with quality assurance processes in higher education

associated mainly with voluntary self-regulation carried out by

professional accrediting organisations and regional accrediting

associations, independent of government. Today there is a wide

variety of professional accrediting organisations covering traditional

professional areas such as medicine, engineering, law, dentistry and

architecture and well as many newer occupational areas. Such

associations accredit particular courses of study. Regional accrediting

associations, on the other hand, accredit institutions (Dill 1997).

2.25 In the 1980s, in addition to the traditional processes of voluntary

accreditation, a new quality assurance mechanism emerged in theUnited States under the rubric of assessment. By 1990, over two thirds

of the states had passed legislation encouraging public institutions of

higher education to implement various forms of student assessment,

designed to place greater institutional attention on the improvement of

student learning. Ultimately, all five regional accrediting associations

also adopted an assessment criterion as one of their criteria for

reviewing institutions of higher education.

2.26 In the 1990s the United States moved to establish a much more

comprehensive national system of quality assurance beginning withpassage of amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1992 which

involved the Federal Government for the first time in quality assur-

ance. This legislation required States to create State Postsecondary

Review Entities with responsibility for reviewing the quality of all

postsecondary institutions and their eligibility for federal student

financial aid. In addition, under pressure from the Federal Department

of Education the various accreditation agencies formed a National

Policy Board on Academic Accreditation, which proposed more

rigorous national standards for academic accreditation with particular

emphasis on student learning. These changes were widely expectedto lead to a more rigorous national system of quality assurance but,

following the 1994 Congressional elections, Federal funding for the

CONTENTS



15


proposed State Review Agencies was eliminate. The following year

proposals from the National Policy Board on Academic Accreditation

were rejected by public and private higher education institutions(Dill 1997, pp 15–16).

2.27 Prompted by the new pressures for strengthening quality assurance,

over the past decade important changes have been made to the

traditional American approach to accreditation in response to public

criticism. This has led many of the regional accreditation associations

to revise key elements of their approach, resulting in more emphasis

on assessment of quality management mechanisms within institutions,

reconsideration of the practice of making reports available only to

the institution concerned, and making the results of accreditationprocesses more generally available to the public (Crow 1994).

Accreditation agencies now have more detailed guidelines with clearly

specified evaluative criteria. While there is considerable variation

between accrediting agencies, detailed written guidelines generally

focus on four main areas:

• organisational and administrative matters;

• resources currently available to the unit (including financial

resources; personnel; space and equipment);

• the curriculum; and• statistics showing the performance or other outcomes for graduates

(El-Khawas 1993).

2.28 Over the past three decades, accreditation systems on the American

model have been established in many countries of Asia and Latin

America. In the Asian region, accreditation systems play a key role in

the higher education systems of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the

Philippines. In the Philippines, a system of voluntary accreditation was

developed among private colleges in the 1960s, but only in the last

decade has this been extended to public universities and colleges

(Arcelo 1992). Recent efforts have attempted to strengthen accrediting

agencies and their procedures. The Federation of Accrediting Agencies

of the Philippines, for example, has developed common accrediting

standards, while a Congressional Commission recommended that the

policies and practices of the accrediting agencies be reviewed

periodically (Cooney and Paqueo-Arrezo 1993). Similarly, in Taiwan,

well-established accreditation systems have been strengthened with

academic associations being given an enhanced role (Su 1993).

In Latin America, accreditation systems operate in Brazil, Colombia

and Chile (Ayaraza 1994), although generally there is not a strongtradition of quality assurance, despite the extensive expansion of

private higher education.

CONTENTS



17


Table 2.1 Main approaches and methodologies at national Level

A. Responsible agency/unit • Unit or section within a Government agency

• Separate quality assurance agency established by Government

• Separate agency established collectively by higher

education institutions

• Agency established jointly by Government and institutions

B. Participation in reviews and other activities

• Voluntary

• Compulsory

• Voluntary, with some measure of pressure/persuasion

C. Methodologies of review and assessment

• Self study or self evaluation

• Peer review by panels of experts, usually with use of external panel

members and site visits

• Analysis of statistical information and/or use of performance

indicators• Surveys of students, graduates, employers, professional bodies

• Testing the knowledge, skills and competencies of students

D. Focus

• National reviews of disciplines

– reviews of research only

– reviews of teaching only

– reviews of combination of research, teaching, and other activities

• Institutional evaluations

– reviews of teaching only

– reviews of research only

– reviews of quality assurance processes

– comprehensive reviews usually including teaching, research,

management, and quality assurance processes

• Comprehensive national evaluations of higher education system

CONTENTS



18


E Purposes

• Accountability

• Improvement and renewal

• Combination of purposes

F. Reporting and follow-up activities

• Report provided solely to the institution or unit concerned

• Report provided to the institution or unit but also published

or made more widely available

• Formal reports provided to the Minister, Ministry, or

coordinating board• Public reporting

• Use of ranking and wide publication of the results of such ranking

• Performance funding

• Accreditation or validation

• Improvement and renewal activities

Administrative responsibility

2.32 The most common pattern at national level is for responsibility to lie

with a specialised unit or agency set up by Government, or with the

central agency responsible for higher education coordination, whether

it be a Ministry or a University Grants Commission. Thus in Denmark

there is the Evaluation Centre set up by the Government with a

mandate to initiate evaluation processes, develop appropriate methods

for assessing academic programs, inspire and guide institutions in

quality and evaluations, and compile information on national and

international experiences (Thune 1994). Somewhat similar arrange-

ments operate in France, Finland, Korea, and Thailand. On the otherhand, in Sweden control of quality assurance lies with the Swedish

National Higher Education Agency while in South Africa the Higher

Education Quality Committee is a sub-agency of the Commission for

Higher Education (Strydom 1997).

2.33 The two major issues concerning government quality assurance

agencies are what degree of independence they should have both

from Ministers and from major ministries and departments, and what

links there are between quality assurance and funding. In summary,

the main arguments for a high degree of independence are that suchindependence will lead to greater trust and confidence, and enhance

professional judgments, whereas others argue for government control

CONTENTS



19


in order to integrate quality assurance more closely with planning

and coordination. An agency with considerable independence from

the Minister and the agencies of executive government is the FrenchComite National d’Evaluation (CNE) which reports to the President

and is independent of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education

and other executive agencies (van Vught 1994a). In other cases,

attempts have been made to ensure that the management of quality

assurance is captured neither by the Ministry nor by the higher

education institutions; in Finland, for example, the Higher Education

Evaluation Council is made up of 12 members appointed by the

Ministry, together with representative of universities (4), polytechnics (4),

student organisations (2) and business and industry (2) (Liuhanen 1997).

2.34 In a small number of countries, responsibility for aspects of quality

assurance at the national level is under the control of an agency set

up by higher education institutions themselves. Such examples are

found in the Netherlands, Italy and in New Zealand (at least up to the

present), where quality assurance programs are conducted by agencies

set up by the peak association of universities. In the Netherlands, the

current system of quality assurance for both the University and the

non-University sectors sprang from a restructuring in the mid-1980s

of the relationship between the Ministry of Education and Science

and higher education institutions. An understanding was developed

that, in exchange for a greater degree of financial and managerial

autonomy, the institutions would demonstrate that they were offering

quality education. Originally it was planned that this assessment of

quality would be a responsibility of the Inspectorate for Higher

Education but, in the end, after negotiations, the two voluntary bodies

representing higher education institutions in both university and

non-university sectors respectively agreed to take responsibility.

However, follow-up activities are the responsibility of the Inspectorate

of Higher Education, an independent body set up by the Government(Zijderveld 1997). In Italy since 1992 an important role in quality

assurance has been performed by the Italian Standing Conference of

Rectors (CRUI) which stimulates reflection and dialogue on issues

related to the establishment within universities of periodic evaluation

practices, and provides assistance to universities in setting up their

internal evaluation systems. The CRUI has also created a common

information system based on evaluations (Boffo and Moscati 1997).

The New Zealand scheme for University audits has been under the

control of universities rather than the Government (Malcom 1993).

CONTENTS



20


2.35 An example of joint government-university control is in Korea where

responsibility lies with both the Ministry of Education and the Korean

Council for University Education. In 1992, the Ministry and the Councilagreed to establish an independent accreditation body within the

Council, called the Council of University Accreditation. The latter body

is composed of 16 representatives from universities, industry and

government. The Ministry of Education and the Korean Council for

University Education jointly decide annually which university

departments will be evaluated, while the Council for University

Accreditation consults with relevant professional associations and

organises accreditation committees made up of university staff. After

each evaluation, staff of the Korean Council for University Education

reviews reports and produce total scores for each department, leading

to grading of departments as good, moderate, or poor. The list of

good departments is announced and reports and documentation are

considered by the Ministry of Education’s Advisory Council for Higher

Education (Lee 1993).

Participation in the program2.36 An important variation between quality assurance systems is whether

participation is voluntary or compulsory. Many countries began withinstitutional audits on a voluntary basis. Thus, in Britain the

institutional audits run by the AAU were voluntary (Williams 1991),

while the Research Assessment Exercise run by the Higher Education

Funding Council of England (HEFCE) for the funding councils

continues to be based on the principle of voluntary participation.

In Finland, when the Ministry of Education launched the program

of university reviews in 1991 on an experimential basis, two

universities—Oulu and Jyvaskyala—volunteered to be involved.

When the Evaluation Centre was set up in Denmark one of its

three guiding principles was that participation would be voluntary

(Thune 1994).

2.37 Generally, however, with national reviews of disciplines participation is

compulsory and even when participation is voluntary strong moral and

professional pressures usually result in a high level of participation.

CONTENTS



21


Methodologies2.38 Most quality assurance mechanisms depend on one or a combination

of a limited number of key methodologies, the most important of

which are self studies or self evaluation; peer review by panels of

experts; the use of relevant statistical information and performance

indicators; and surveys of key groups, such as students, graduates

and employers.

2.39 Self studies have proved both effective and cost efficient, achieving

a high degree of ownership since key staff are heavily involved and

such involvement increases the chances of improvements being

achieved. Experience points to the value of combining self-studies

with external peer review to ensure that evaluation is taken seriously

and outside perspectives are included.

2.40 Self-studies first developed in the United States with institutional and

course accreditation, but over the last decade or so it have become an

important feature of many quality assurance systems. Self-studies have

many positive features: they are cost effective, since the main work is

done internally, often with little additional resources being necessary;

they usually achieve a high degree of ownership since key staff are

heavily involved and such involvement increases the chances of

substantial improvement being achieved; and the process of review

or assessment is made less threatening. On the other hand, experience

points to the value of combining self study with some element of

external peer review, especially to ensure that the self-study is taken

seriously and to bring in outside perspectives. Combination of

self-study with external peer review provides a strong incentive for

staff to take the activity more seriously. One of the strongest pressures

on any group of academics is the prospect of being judged by senior

peers in the discipline.

2.41 Peer review is a well-established academic process and generally

works well provided external members are included and panel

members show respect for the values of those being evaluated and

accept that often their main contribution will be in assisting with

self-learning. At the same time, it must be recognised that peer review

can easily introduce outside values and constructs. In its traditional

format, peer review generally involves a visit by a group of

well-regarded academics in the particular field but recent practice,

especially for reviews of programs or disciplines, has been to add

other experts to panels, such as persons from industry or business,practising professionals, or elected public officials.

CONTENTS



22


2.42 External reporting often is thought necessary in order not only to

ensure accountability requirements but that staff take a self-study

seriously. Related questions are to whom should external reports go,and how widely and publicly should such reports be distributed.

2.43 Most evaluations combine self-study with the use of statistical

information and/or performance indicators, and now frequently the

results of surveys of students, graduates and employers. In some cases,

a national program of reviews is accompanied by the use of national

statistical collections and published performance indicators. In the case

of France, for example, the CNE quality assessment disciplinary

reviews begin with self-evaluation reports produced by the institutions

being reviewed and statistical reports produced by the CNE, govern-ment offices and the institution (van Vught 1994a). In Finland, an

extensive nationwide university data base (KOTA) was established in

the late 1980s, containing key statistics about university performance

by institutions and disciplines (Liuhanen 1997). This data base covers

the following topics: applications for admission; home and foreign

students; degrees including the duration of masters degrees; teaching

and other staff; appropriations; premises; graduate placements;

continuing education; open university instruction; researcher visits

abroad; scientific publications; and the target number of degrees

agreed in Ministry-University consultations.

2.44 In a number of counties, particularly the United States, various

initiatives have been taken to develop tests to assess student know-

ledge, skills and competencies. The main efforts here have been at

institutional level, although there are examples of statewide initiatives.

By 1990, over two thirds of states had passed regulations encouraging

public institutions of higher education to implement various forms of

‘student assessment programs’ designed to place more emphasis on

improvement of student learning. Regional accrediting bodies also

have adopted new assessment criteria for reviews of higher education

institutions (Dill 1997).

CONTENTS



23


Focus2.45 At the national level, the most common forms of assessment are

‘horizontal’ reviews of disciplines and ‘vertical’ evaluations of

institutions. Reviews of disciplines are usually carried out by panels

of experts using site visits and analysis of documentary information,

much of which is usually produced by the academic units being

reviewed. Some disciplinary reviews concentrate on teaching only,

some on research only, while others look at both teaching and

research. Generally disciplinary reviews result in published reports,

with often detailed comments being made on the work within each

department or faculty.

2.46 Institutional reviews include academic audits of quality assurance

processes and outcomes, and more extensive comprehensive reviews.

The international practice of institutional academic audits has been

considerably influenced by the methodology developed a decade ago

by the AAU in the United Kingdom. Under this approach, the focus is

a meta-evaluation of the mechanisms and approaches to quality

assurance management, rather than an assessment of the quality

achieved. Institutions are visited by small teams of academics,

following a ‘negotiated invitation’, and these teams make an on-site

audit using a checklist of good practice. A general report is preparedfor the university as a whole, while confidential reports on sensitive

issues are produced for the Vice-Chancellor. Practice varies on

whether reports are published, and whether the results are reported

officially to the government or funding agency.

2.47 In a number of countries, there is a long tradition of periodic national,

comprehensive reviews of higher education, often conducted by

special committees or panels. Thus in Britain, there was the Robbins

Committee in the 1960s and more recently the Dearing Committee,

while in Australia parallel reviews have been held under the leader-ship of Sir Leslie Martin and Mr Roderick West. In many cases,

however, such comprehensive reviews are not considered as part of

a national program of quality assurance, although in Sweden the brief

of the new Swedish National Higher Education Agency includes

investigating and evaluating the higher education system and its

results in relation to the society’s overarching general goals for higher

education (Asking and Bauer 1997).

CONTENTS



24


Purposes2.48 Quality assurance programs can often serve a variety of purposes

but generally their primary purposes are a combination of public

accountability, improvement and renewal. In some cases, there

is a gap between stated purposes and actual purposes and frequently

there is tension between accountability and improvement purposes.

2.49 Frequently the stated purpose of a national quality assurance program

is linked to a particular philosophical approach to evaluation and to

particular views about the role of government in the control of higher

education. As already noted, the current system of quality assurance in

the Netherlands was clearly linked to a new philosophy about the

relationship between the state and higher education institutions and

on a belief that the assessment process should be as non evasive as

possible (van Vught 1994a).

2.50 Similarly, in the case of Sweden, the approach adopted by the

Swedish National Higher Education Agency stems from the transition

from ex-ante regulation to devolution of authority and ex-post control

(Bauer and Franke-Wikberg 1993). While the Agency has a number

of functions including both enhancing and controlling quality, to date

it has given clear priority to supporting and enhancing activities. In its

own guidelines, the Agency has underlined its supportive role and

expressed its strong commitment to a ‘soft’ approach to its evaluative

tasks (Askling and Bauer 1997).

Reporting and follow-up2.51 Reporting and follow-up activities are vital components, but a major

challenge is to devise fair and effective methods likely to lead to

improvements without damaging the unit or units being reviewed.

A variety of approaches are widely used with regard to the distributionof reports. In some cases, reports are provided solely to the institution

or the unit concerned, but increasingly the practice is to make the

results more widely available. At national level, reports for institutional

evaluations or disciplinary reviews now are frequently provided to

Ministers, Ministries and funding agencies. Precisely what happens to

a report can be one of the most contentious issues in quality

assurance programs. While participants in the institution or department

being assessed often wish to limit circulation of a report, particularly

one which includes critical comments, the demands of accountability

usually require wider circulation.

CONTENTS



25


2.52 Associated with this is a difficulty often experienced by review panels

in preparing reports which will be considered by different stake-

holders. What is desirable is that the issues of reporting and follow-upshould be explicitly addressed in guidelines prior to commencement

of any review. In this way both reviewers and the unit being reviewed

will know from the outset who will see the final report. However, it is

widely accepted that whatever the final distribution of a report, the

institution or unit being assessed should have an opportunity to

comment on the draft report.

2.53 Some agencies have adopted systems of rankings based on perform-

ance in relation to established criteria. In the United Kingdom, for

example, participating university departments are ranked in separatereviews of performance in both teaching and research, and these

results are publicly announced.

2.54 In a minority of cases, some element of performance funding is used

as part of a quality assurance program. In the United Kingdom,

performance in research as measured by the Research Assessment

Exercise (McNay 1997) is used as the basis by the three funding

councils and the Department of Education of Northern Ireland for

allocating substantial research funding to institutions. In the United

States, performance funding has been used for many years by the

state of Tennessee to improve higher education by adopting a single

set of outcomes and rewarding institutions for their performance

(El-Khawas 1997). Currently the maximum reward for performance

is an amount equal to 5.5 per cent of an institution’s overall budget.

In the fiscal year 1995, $27 million was allocated.

2.55 A number of arguments are advanced in favour of performance

funding: key ones are that such mechanisms provide strong incentives

towards excellence and sends out clear messages from government

agencies to institutions and academic staff. On the other hand, oppon-

ents argue that performance funding can distort the purposes of evaluation, damage the links between evaluation and improvement

and, by denying funding to lesser performing departments or insti-

tutions, damage their reputations, their ability to recruit staff and

students, and their capacity to improve.

2.56 In a limited number of cases, the final result is accreditation or

validation of the program or institution. As already noted, accreditation

has had a long history in the United States. In late 19th century

America, growing diversity in institutional forms and lack of centrally

defined standards led to a degree of chaos. In the end, institutionstook the initiative and developed mechanisms of quality assurance

which included accreditation of institutions and academic programs.

CONTENTS



26


2.57 Accreditation usually involves a process of self-review by the

organisation or unit seeking accreditation, resulting in the develop-

ment of extensive documentation with detail on goals, resources,facilities and internal evaluation mechanisms, as well as an assessment

of achievements in relation to goals. Production of the self-study is

usually followed by a visit of a team of external assessors and a final

decision, using pre-defined standards on whether or not the institution

or the program meets the specified criteria.

Concluding comments2.58 In reviewing recent international practice with regard to the

management of quality assurance, especially for academic activities,

this chapter has pointed to the tremendous variety in experimentation

that has taken place in recent years, providing a rich source of models

of evaluation and review, and of reporting and follow-up activities.

In many countries, the main emphasis at the national level has been

on academic audits and institutional evaluations, and reviews of

disciplines and professional areas. The current experimentation seems

likely to continue, especially with the effects of increased of increased

trends towards globalisation and increased economic competitionbetween nations. Many of the experiments appear to have produced

positive benefits, including improvements in academic programs,

closer links with employers and professions, and increased confidence

among key stakeholders. On the other hand, questions are being

asked about the financial and administrative costs of quality assurance

mechanisms in relation to the benefits derived.

2.59 As a result of the experimentation of the past decade, there is now

a growing body of experience and evidence available about how well

different approaches are working in particular settings. Such inform-ation can be of considerable assistance to national higher education

systems or institutions interesting in developing new quality assurance

systems, or modifying existing systems. One lesson to be learnt is that

great care should be taken is selecting mechanisms likely to enhance

credibility both nationally and internationally and in estimating

resource implications. A number of the methodologies in frequent use

can prove expensive to implement in terms of both personnel time

and financial resources, although with most methodologies there are

usually ways of keeping administrative costs in check, at least to some

extent.

CONTENTS



27


2.60 International experience demonstrates well the value of placing a

major emphasis on quality improvement within a quality assurance

program. While most quality assurance programs quite understandably have accountability as a major driving requirement, it is highly

desirable that all quality assurance programs be deliberately designed

to achieve improvement and renewal.

2.61 In order to succeed and produce major benefits at either institutional

or system levels, any quality assurance program needs the support

of the higher education community. In particular, the benefits will be

disappointingly limited unless academic and administrative staff can

be persuaded to participate and provide support. Gaining this support

may not be easy, since in a number of the recently introduced quality assurance programs academics have seen the particular initiative as

constituting a threat to their professional independence and work.

2.62 In developing a new quality assurance program or evaluating an

existing program, the following criteria are suggested as constituting

highly desirable features:

• The purposes of the program are explicitly stated, with the overall

direction fitting well with the culture and values of the particular

system or institution;

• Approaches and methodologies are congruent with the stated

purposes of the program, and likely to be cost effective and attract

the support of staff;

• The methodology incorporates elements of self-study, peer review,

and external reporting;

• Guidelines are clear and provide for a transparent process, where

judgements will be based on analysis of evidence and the proced-

ures will be fair to all parties involved;

• Guidelines provide for checklists to assist review panels, and forthe institution or unit being reviewed to have input into the choice

of external panel members;

• Administrative arrangements provide for an overseeing committee

or group to have responsibility for the organisation of any review,

including the appointment of panels, and review of the reports

of panels;

• Clear external reporting arrangements are specified in the guidelines,

or the procedures provide for reporting arrangements to be agreed

by the parties concerned prior to commencement of any review; and

• The program places major emphasis on improvement, renewal and

the application of ‘good practice’.

CONTENTS



29


Chapter 3

Australian higher education providers and currentarrangements for accreditation and quality assurance

3.1 This chapter describes and categorizes Australian higher education

providers in the context of accreditation and quality assurance, and

then outlines the current arrangements for accreditation and quality

assurance. This is intended to provide a basis for assessing thestrengths and weaknesses of the current system in relation to

particular providers and proposed changes.

Australian higher education providers3.2 For the purposes of this study, Australian higher education providers

can be categorized into five distinct groups. The first group comprises

public universities and other public higher education institutions

established under State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation.

This group includes the 37 public universities and also a smallnumber of non-university higher education institutions, such as the

Australian Maritime College in Launceston and Batchelor College in

the Northern Territory. All these institutions have the power to

approve or accredit their own courses and all receive operating grant

funding from the Commonwealth under Higher Education Funding

legislation. Significantly, the Australian Maritime College was

established under Commonwealth rather than Tasmanian legislation.

3.3 A second group of institutions is made up of non-government instit-

utions which operate under their own legislation and have self-accrediting powers. The oldest of these is the Melbourne College of

Divinity, established in 1910 by an act of the Victorian Parliament.

The College was established because the University of Melbourne was

unable to offer degrees in Divinity springing from traditions of

separation of church and State (Smith 1998, p 3). It is operated by

participating Christian denominations as a private institution, without

the benefit of government funding. Costs are met through student

fees and endowments. More recent institutions are Bond University

on the Gold Coast and Notre Dame University at Fremantle, bothof which enjoy their own acts of parliament, giving them similar

powers to public universities. These two universities depend on

CONTENTS



30


fee and endowment income, although the Commonwealth Govern-

ment has agreed to fund Notre Dame courses for indigenous students

at Broome.

3.4 The third group comprises institutions not established by legislation

but who have been given government approval to operate. The best

known example is Melbourne University Private, which is a joint

venture between the University of Melbourne and private partners.

It gained approval in 1998 to operate for a period of five years under

the Victorian Tertiary Education Act 1993 (Smith 1998, p 11) but this

was conditional on the University of Melbourne bering responsible for

certification of its courses (but not for accreditation, which lies outside

the statutory powers of the University of Melbourne) This category also includes the National Art School in Sydney, which was once a

TAFE institution but now an independent higher education institution

funded by the state. However, it is not self-accrediting and each of its

courses must be considered separately for accreditation. In 1998, the

School gained approval for a Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts under the

approval process provided under the New South Wales Higher

Education Act 1988.

3.5 The fourth group comprises private providers whose courses have

been accredited by State or Territory accrediting agencies. In 1998there were 68 authorised providers offering 225 accredited under-

graduate degree and postgraduate award courses. Details of these are

set out in Table 3.1

CONTENTS



31


Table 3.1 Higher education accredited awards offered by private providers

Bachelor Grad Cert Grad Dip Master Doctoral

CONTENTS

Vic 17 2 10 5 1

NSW 24 2 26 6 0

SA 26** 9 14 9 1

ACT 6** 25 15 – –

Qld 9 3 6 3 –

WA 1 – – – –

Tas – – – – –

NT – – – – –

Nat. Total 83 41 71 23 2

* appropriate numbers as advised by State and Territory Officials, August, 1998

** includes TAFE degrees

Source: Smith 1998, p 3.

3.6 Private providers have existed for a long period, generally operating in

relatively small but often well-established market niches. The most

durable of these providers are the theological colleges and church-

related colleges, whose courses generally closely resemble university

courses. The largest are Avondale College operated by the Seventh

Day Adventist Church and the Australian College of Theology, which

is a national federation of various denominational theological colleges.

The Commonwealth funds teacher education courses at Avondale

College. Another sub-group in this category are long-term ‘industry’

commercial providers who conduct courses at tertiary level to meetthe needs of their particular market areas. Notable features of this sub-

group are high motivation of students, a focus on particular discipline

areas and user-pays principles.

3.7 Smith has further divided this sub-group of commercial providers into

two separate sub-groups, with a third emerging (Smith 1998, p 3).

First, there are the highly specific professional associations, such as

the Securities Institute, the Institution of Engineers and the Royal

Australian College of General Practitioners. For many years, these

and similar bodies have conducted ‘in service’ professional educationprograms for their members, awarding credentials on completion.



32


Courses have been conducted at a level which has led to consistent

success in obtaining accreditation for their courses.

3.8 The second set within the sub-group consists of established

commercial providers such as general business colleges offering

programs across the full spectrum of commercial courses. While there

have been some spectacular individual failures in this area, these

colleges have generally met an important market need and continue

to do so.

3.9 A third set consists of loosely coordinated but rapidly growing

institutions in the area of alternative health practice. Traditional

Chinese Medicine and other alternative approaches to health care

such as Naturopathy and Homoeopathy have become increasingly

popular throughout Australia in recent years. While training courses

in these areas have been available from private providers for many

years, the considerable public interest at the present time and the

need to ensure that such practices are safe to the public, is causing

public health authorities to review the level and nature of training

offered in alternative health practice.

3.10 Alternative health practitioners themselves are recognising that the

growth of their profession will be dependent on having agreed

minimum acceptable academic standards. Last year over thirty

Traditional Chinese Medicine organisations across Australia have

been meeting to reach agreement about minimum standards of

training. These practitioners seek to determine standards appropriate

for achieving professional status. Several universities, notably

Southern Cross, Victoria University of Technology and RMIT have

already responded to industry demands and are offering degree

programs in acupuncture. Private provider programs in naturopathy

have been approved in Queensland and Victoria.

3.11 A fifth category comprises private providers whose courses have not

yet been accredited. Relatively little is known about this group, but

it includes providers who offer sub-degree work and providers whose

courses are approved for credit transfer for entry to degree programs

at various public universities. Examples of the latter include providers

established by universities (such as Insearch owned by the University

of Technology, Sydney and the Sydney Institute of Business and

Technology which has been established by Macquarie University)

and private providers who have established special relationships with

particular university faculties (such as the Faculty of Economics at theUniversity of Sydney with the Universal Education Centre).

CONTENTS



33


3.12 In 1998, public higher education institutions in category 1 enrolled

about 671 853 students of whom some 72 183 were international

students. Comparatively little is known about enrolments in the otherfive categories. However, one State officer has estimated that there may

be 15 000 higher education students enrolled in courses accredited by

State and Territory agencies while a Commonwealth official estimates

that total enrolments in higher education courses outside Common-

wealth funded institutions may total 40 000 to 50 000 students.

International education enrolments3.13 Since pressures for strengthened accreditation and quality assurance

arrangements are being driven substantially from concern to protect

the higher education export industry, it is important to consider more

closely details of international student enrolments. Of the total of

72 183 international students enrolled in 1998 in institutions funded by

Commonwealth operating grants (plus the Australian Film and Tele-

vision School, the National Institute of Dramatic Art and the Australian

Defence Forces Academy), 37 719 were males and 34 464 were

females. Total load was 59 463 EFTSU. The three most important

sources of international higher education students by country, in rankorder, are Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. In 1997, according to

UNESCO figures, Australia ranked third after the United States and the

United Kingdom in terms of the total number of enrolled overseas

students. With the exception of Singapore (where Australia is the top

provider) and Malaysia (where the United Kingdom is top provider),

the United States is the most popular destination for international

students from all of Australia’s top 10 source countries. Australia ranks

second behind the United States in Hong Kong, Indonesia, India,

Thailand and China; and third behind the United States and the United

Kingdom in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Australia outranksCanada and New Zealand in all of Australia’s top 10 source countries.

3.14 Of the total number of international students enrolled in 1998, a total

of 22 583 were enrolled in ‘off -shore’ programs. Of these, 65.9 per cent

were enrolled in bachelors degrees while 21.6 per cent were enrolled

in masters degrees by course work. Table 3.2 shows the total off-shore

enrolments of Australia’s major ‘off-shore’ providers. Together, these

seven providers account for almost 15 000 students. In terms of mode

of attendance, 60 per cent of total Australian ‘off-shore’ higher

education students are internal, 38.8 per cent are external and theremainder are classed as multi-modal. In terms of total numbers of

CONTENTS



34


Australian off-shore students in different countries, the largest number

are in Hong Kong (7 204) followed in rank order by Singapore

(6 898), Malaysia (2 994), New Zealand (584) and Japan (560). Thelargest concentrations per country for single institutions are shown in

Table 3.3.

Table 3.2 Total ‘off-shore’ student enrolments of major higher education providers,1998

Institution Enrolments

RMIT 3008University of Southern Queensland 2323

Curtin University of Technology 2211

Monash University 2181

University of Ballarat 1836

University of South Australia 1711

Charles Sturt University 1549

Source: DETYA, Selected Higher Education Statistics 1998

Table 3.3 Largest off-shore enrolments in particular countries by institutions, 1998

Institution Country Enrolments

RMIT Singapore 2202

VUT Hong Kong 1255

Uni of South Australia Hong Kong 1035

Curtin University Hong Kong 975

Curtin University Singapore 952

Uni of South Australia Malaysia 928

Source: DETYA, Selected Higher Education Statistics 1998

CONTENTS



35


Current accreditation arrangements

3.15 Accreditation of higher education institutions and courses in otherthan universities and other institutions established under their own

legislation (State, Territory or Commonwealth) is under the control

of State and Territory Governments who view this responsibility as

flowing from their responsibilities for education under the Common-

wealth constitution. The relevant legislation in each of these

jurisdictions is shown in Table 3.4. Most acts listed make provision

for private providers of higher education to secure accreditation and

approval to offer courses. In other cases, legislation provides for

accreditation of institutions and courses. The main aim of the various

legislation is to protect the status and quality of awards, to ensure thatprivate providers have met minimum criteria with regard to facilities

and staff capacity, to ensure that the provision of higher education

services by private providers is consistent with that offered by

publicly-funded institutions and, in keeping with National Competition

principles, ensures that private providers to offer courses which meet

appropriate standards. Some of the legislation also aims to protect

students from providers who cease to be financially solvent.

Table 3.4 Legislation providing for accreditation of courses and institutions Victoria Tertiary Education Act 1993

Queensland Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993

South Australia Vocational Education and Training Act 1994

and Business Names Act

Tasmania Universities Registration Act 1995

New South Wales Higher Education Act 1988

Australian Capital Territory ACT Vocational Education and

Training Act 1995

Northern Territory Northern Territory Education Act 1995

Western Australia Business Names Act 1962

Source: Smith 1998, p 6.

CONTENTS



36


Accreditation of courses3.16 While the details of the arrangements differ between the various states

and territories, in each case providers make applications following a

specified format. Applications are subject to a rigorous review process

carried out by expert panels which include experienced personnel

from public universities. Panels make recommendations to the

Minister, or to a person or body with powers delegated from the

Minister or provided for in legislation.

3.17 Each of the States and Territories has developed criteria and proced-

ures that determine the way that applications for course accreditation

are assessed. For example, the Victorian Tertiary Education Act 1993 ,

obliges the Minister to have regard to whether the course of study is

equivalent in standard to a course leading to an award of that type or

level in a University. In deciding whether or not to accredit a course,

the Minister may take into account all or any of the following matters:

(i) student selection procedures;

(ii) the number of students;

(iii) class sizes;

(iv) student contact hours;

(v) curriculum;

(vi) premises, equipment, materials and resources;

(vii) course nomenclature;

(viii) qualifications and experience of staff

(Tertiary Education Act 1993, p 10).

3.18 The Victorian Minister is advised by University academics and industry

specialists through a Ministerial Standing Advisory Committee and

various ad hoc expert panels (Smith 1998, p 8).

3.19 In New South Wales, under the Higher Education Act 1988, detailedguidelines have been developed dealing with the documentation

requirements of applications for course accreditation, the composition

and selection of new assessment committees, and the role of chair-

person and secretary of assessment committees. For committees

assessing courses leading to the award of a bachelors degree or higher

level, the New South Wales Vice-Chancellors’ Conference nominates

two members, one who is knowledgeable in the major academic field

being addressed in the course under assessment and the second who

is experienced in course planning and assessment. The 1988 Act wasdrafted with accreditation of advanced education courses in mind and,

CONTENTS



37


possibly for that reason, no explicit specification is provided of the

assessment criteria to be used.

3.20 In Queensland, accreditation of higher education courses is governed

by the Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993. Under this

legislation, the Minister is the accrediting authority for courses leading

to higher education awards. The Minister may accredit a course for a

higher education award or proposed award if he or she ‘is satisfied,

following an assessment made in accordance with accrediting proced-

ures and criteria approved by the Minister, that the course, and the

way of delivering it, are appropriate to the type of award’ (Section 10

(2)). Detailed documentation is available to applicants from the Office

of Higher Education in Education Queensland. This sets out proced-

ures and criteria for the accreditation of higher education courses

offered by non-university providers. These procedures and criteria are

probably the most detailed of any State and Territory and cover topics

including the nature and purpose of accreditation, the accreditation

process, accreditation fees, criteria for accreditation, and required

documentation. The extended section on criteria states that a course

assessment panel ‘must satisfy itself that the application before it

meets the criteria with respect to the standard and quality of the

course and the capacity of the provider to deliver it’ (EducationQueensland, Office of Higher Education 1997, p 19). The section on

criteria then goes on to specify information required on such matters

as statement of mission and purpose of the course, legal status of

body providing the course and governance arrangements, educational

oversight, composition of the course advisory committee, the financial

standing of institution, qualifications and expertise of staff, and

educational requirements. Under educational requirements, it is stated

that, before recommending accreditation, a course assessment panel

must be satisfied that:

• the field of study in which the course is proposed does indeed

constitute a coherent body of knowledge, supported by an

appropriately developed theoretical framework, and a substantial

body of scholarship and/or reflective professional practice;

• the course proposed is comparable in standard and educational

value to a course leading to a similar award in a university, in

terms of the overall goals for the course, course entry requirements,

the breadth and depth of course content, the structure of the

course in terms of the mix of general and specialised skills andknowledge, the levels of skills and knowledge developed, the

CONTENTS



38


duration and workload of the course, and the methods of

delivery and assessment;

• the course satisfies the guidelines for the proposed qualification

laid down in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF); and

• the general educational practices and standards of the provider,

and the processes adopted for monitoring the operation of the

educational program, are adequate to maintain the offering of

the course (Education Queensland, Office of Higher Education

1997, p 23).

3.21 In contrast, procedures and criteria in use in the Australian Capital

Territory are much briefer, reflecting the smaller staff capacity of the

relevant section of the Department of Education and Community

Services. Power to accredit higher education courses in the ACT

comes from the Vocational Education and Training Act 1995 which

gives the Accreditation and Registration Council power to ‘accredit

courses in the higher education sector, including but not limited to

vocational education and training courses, whether provided in the

Territory or elsewhere’ (Section 13 (c)). While assessment criteria are

not set out, these are specifically referred to and the Department must

provide on request copies of assessment criteria. The Act gives the

Minister power to examine, or cause to be examined, the operationsof a non-university provider, including the standard of the course,

the way of delivering it, and the ability (including financial ability)

of a non-university provider to deliver the course. Such examinations

may take place during the period for which a course is accredited.

3.22 Recently the States and Territories have agreed on procedures for

considering applications and authorisation to offer higher education

courses in two or more States and Territories, and operational

guidelines to achieve this were endorsed by MCEETYA in April 1999.

These guidelines cover the procedures for considering applications,

format of applications, fee structure, determination of which state or

Territory authority should consider an application, concurrent assess-

ment panels, and accreditation outcomes. Joint or concurrent accred-

itation procedures are now in place and the states and territories are

currently working to achieve greater consistency in criteria and

procedures. Significantly, the document endorsed by MCEETYA made

no mention of the criteria for assessment and accreditation.

CONTENTS



39


Accreditation of new or overseas universities

3.23 The States and Territories have overall responsibility for the higher

education institutions that operate within their jurisdictions and in a

number of cases through legislation there is control over the use of

the terms ‘university’ and ‘degree’, and over degree titles. However,

there are significant differences in terms of legislation and the

processes by which new or overseas universities can be recognised.

3.24 Table 3.5 summarises the provisions in the various States and

Territories with regard to recognition of new universities, recognition

of universities established in other States and Territories, and

recognition of foreign universities, while Table 3.6 summariseslegislative protection offered nationally to Australian universities.

It will be noted that the most detailed legislative controls operate in

Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania. From Table 3.6

it will be noted that The Trade Practices Act and related State/

Territories legislation protects against misleading advertising. Business

names legislation restricts the use of the word ‘university’. The

Corporations Law places restrictions on the use of the name

‘university’. Under relevant guidelines consent will normally be

granted to use the word ‘university’ where a body has been given

accreditation to operate as a university. This includes a foreign body

accredited outside Australia. The difficulties arising from the breadth

of the guidelines in The Corporations Law is currently the subject of

discussion between the Treasury and DETYA. The guidelines estab-

lished as part of this process may be useful to the States in relation to

their business names legislation.

3.25 In Victoria, the Tertiary Education Act 1993 protects use of the terms

‘university’ and ‘degree’, regulates the titles of all higher education

awards, and regulates the establishment of new universities in theState. There is no impediment to universities recognised elsewhere in

Australia operating in Victoria, although they must have Ministerial

approval if they wish to deliver courses to overseas students. Foreign

universities require Ministerial approval to operate. To date, major

reviews have been conducted under the 1993 Act to consider

applications from Ballarat University College and Melbourne University

Private. For the 1993 review of the application of Ballarat University

College, the Panel placed considerable emphasis on 1989 criteria for

the essential characteristics of Universities published by the AVCC. It

recommended that a new University be established under its own act

of Parliament, with a five year sponsorship by an existing major

CONTENTS



40


university (Report of Review Panel 1993, p 23). The 1998 review of

Melbourne University Private also used the 1989 AVCC criteria but

noted that the AVCC had in 1997 published further criteria. The reportof the panel commented as follows:

The proposal from Melbourne University Private asserts that the

AVCC criteria are not applicable. The panel does not agree with

this view. However, the Victorian Government’s policy commit -

ment to the AVCC criteria relates to the earlier statement rather

than the later one (Report of Panel 1998, p 16).

Table 3.5 Legislation relevant to the establishment and operation of

Australian universitiesState/Territory Legislation

Western Australia • No generic legislation protecting title ‘university’, or degree or

regulating establishment or operation of a university

• There is no impediment to a university from another State

operating in WA and no explicit protection against ‘bogus’ oroverseas institutions.

Victoria • The Tertiary Education Act 1993 protects the title ‘university’and ‘degree’ and regulates the establishment of universities in

Victoria• There is no impediment to universities recognised in other

Australian States/Territories operating in Victoria. However, if

they want to deliver courses to overseas students in Victoria,they must have the Minister’s endorsement. Foreign

universities require Ministerial approval.

Australian Capital • There is no explicit legislation protecting the title ‘university’

Territory or ‘degree’ or regulating the establishment and operation

of a university, including a foreign university.

New South Wales • The NSW Higher Education Act 1988 regulates accreditation

of higher education courses & nomenclature and protects theuse of the title ‘university’

• Varying levels of regulation apply to overseas universitiesseeking to operate in NSW, but not to other Australianuniversities

• Universities are regulated by individual university enabling acts.

Northern Territory • The NT Education Act places certain restrictions on the

conferring of higher education awards (this includes overseasinstitutions, but not other State/ Territory universities). There

is no explicit provision covering the establishment of a new university.

CONTENTS



41


Queensland • The Higher education (General provisions) Act 1993 explicitly

protects the title ‘university’ and ‘degree’ and regulates the

establishment of universities in the State. It allows other Australian universities to operate in QLD, but requires anoverseas accredited university to seek Ministerial approval.

South Australia • The Vocational Education, Employment and Training Act

1994 (VEET Act) provides for the accreditation of degreecourses (except for a South Australian university, but

including universities from other Australian States andoverseas universities).

• There is no explicit education legislation protecting the title‘university’ or regulating the establishment or operation of

universities in South Australia.Tasmania • Tasmania has explicit legislation (Universities Registration Act

1995 and Universities Registration Amendment Act 1997 )protecting the title ‘university’ and ‘degree’ and regulating theestablishment of universities in the State. It also controls

foreign universities.

• The University of Tasmania was established under its own

legislation.

• There is no impediment to universities from other States

operating there.

Source: Papers for Meeting of Multilateral Joint Planning Committee, 30 June 1999

Table 3.6 Summary of legislative protection offered nationally to Australian ‘universities’

The Trade Practices Act and Protects against misleading advertising

related State/Territory legislation

Corporations Law Protects term ‘university’, but requires tighter

guidelines

State Business names Legislation Protects titles ‘university’& ‘degree’—but may need tighter guidelines

State Higher Education Legislation • Protects the title ‘university’ in Victoria,NSW, QLD, Tasmania

• Prevents overseas institutions operatingexcept with permission in Victoria, NSW,

NT, QLD, South Australia, Tasmania

Note: The legislation does not provide protection against an institution of questionable quality, which

has been accredited in a State or Territory, from operating except in South Australia.

Source: Papers for Meeting of Multilateral Joint Planning Committee, 30 June 1999

CONTENTS



42


3.26 In applying the original AVCC criteria, the review panel for

Melbourne University Private saw the need for some flexibility in view of the special nature of the proposed institution. At the same

time, it placed considerable importance on the maintenance of

standards. This led it to recommend that, as a condition of

approval, awards be offered only if they were certified by the

University of Melbourne. It also recommended that Melbourne

University Private plan to develop its own independent research

profile and have at least three per cent of its student load in

graduate research programs (Report of Panel 1998, p 23).

3.27 In these two assessments and in assessments in other States andTerritories, the original 1989 AVCC guidelines have played an

important role, even though these were developed at the time of

the foundation of the Unified National System as a device for

controlling entry to membership of the AVCC. The 1989 criteria

were detailed and highly restrictive. In order to achieve the status

of a university, the AVCC guidelines specified that an institution

must meet twelve criteria including a commitment by its staff ‘to

the search for and preservation of knowledge by teaching and

research’, ‘courses which meet national and international standards

at a high level’, ‘a fundamental commitment to the training of researchers’, academic staff with ‘high qualifications and profes-

sional standing in the community and with their peers’, and ‘a

high level of material and financial resources to support its

educational activities on a continuing basis’ (AVCC 1989). In

assessing whether an institution met the detailed criteria, the

following minimum quantitative indicators were to be used:

(i) the institution should have a significant student load (of the

order of 5 000 EFTSU) in each of at least three broad fields of

study, such as humanities, science, engineering or education;(ii) the institution will require a minimum proportion of its

student load to be allocated to postgraduate research students

(3 per cent of total student load);

(iii) staff of the institution will be expected to have obtained a

minimum number of competitive research grants (one per

full-time equivalent staff of lecturer and above per annum);

(iv) staff of the institution will be expected to have an average of

0.5 refereed publications per annum per full-time equivalent

staff member; and

CONTENTS



43


(v) at least 25 per cent of all academic staff (both full-time and part-

time) of the institution will be expected to have both a relevant

PhD and research experience.

3.28 For a well established university, a higher profile was expected

including more than 5 000 EFTSU across four or five broad fields of

study, a postgraduate load of more than 7 per cent, an average of

three research grants to 20 full-time equivalent staff, and two to five

refereed publications per annum per equivalent full-time staff. Various

senior officers of the AVCC have commented that it would be

interesting to apply all these indicators to all established public and

private universities today, particularly those relating to research and

research training activities, and the publication and research grantsrecords of academic staff.

3.29 The revised 1997 AVCC criteria are expressed in much broader and

less restrictive terms and do not include specific indicators of perform-

ance (AVCC 1997). No longer is there mention of courses meeting

national and international standards and requirements having a

commitment to research training, and there being an extensive library.

Also there are no longer specific quantitative requirements about size,

postgraduate load, staff qualifications and staff achievements in

attracting research grants and in publications.3.30 In New South Wales, the Higher Education Act 1988 protects the

use of the title ‘university’, and there are varying levels of regulation

applying to overseas universities wishing to operate in the state,

but not to other Australian universities. In Queensland, the Higher

Education (General Provisions Act) 1993 explicitly protects the titles

‘university’ and ‘degree’ and regulates the establishment of new

universities in the State. It allows other Australian universities to

operate in the State, but requires overseas accredited universities

to seek Ministerial approval. In Tasmania, the titles university anddegree are protected and there are powers under 1995 and 1997

legislation to regulate the establishment of new universities and the

operation of foreign universities. In Western Australia, the Australian

Capital Territory, and South Australia, there is no legislation protecting

the titles university and degree, except in the case of the Australian

Capital Territory and South Australia where there are some controls

through accreditation powers.

CONTENTS



44


Protection through other legislation3.31 As Table 3.6 indicates, additional protection is afforded with

regard to the establishment and recognition of universities by

other Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation. All Australian

providers offering education and training services to overseas students

in Australia must be accredited to provide specific courses by the

relevant State/Territory authority, be approved to provide those

courses to overseas students by the relevant State/Territory authority,

be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and

Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). The Education Services for

Overseas Students Act (ESOS) protects students’ fees and provides for

certain other protection. Commonwealth Corporations Law and Stateand Territory business names legislation prevents a company from

carrying on a business as a university unless it registers its names.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 and related State and Territory legislation

protect against misleading advertising while both Business Names

legislation and Corporations law place restrictions on use of the word

university. Action can be taken by the Australian Competition and

Consumer Commission against an institution engaging in such conduct

under The Trade Practices Act, or by State consumer affairs offices

under relevant legislation.

3.32 In addition, entry to regulated professions is a matter for various

registration authorities operating under State and Territory legislation.

Regulated professions include most health-related professions, law

and architecture. There are a number of other professions, notably

accountancy and engineering, for which registration or licensing is

confined to specific areas of professional activity. However, even

when registration is not mandatory, membership of the appropriate

professional body is often helpful for employment purposes and in

these cases generally only the graduates of courses accredited by the

appropriate professional association are eligible for full graduate

membership. Later in the report the accreditation processes used by

professional associations are discussed in more detail.

National recognition and guarantee3.33 Currently the only national policy instrument guaranteeing with regard

to accreditation and quality assurance is the AQF. Universities estab-

lished by legislation and institutions otherwise accredited by State

and Territory accrediting bodies are listed on the AQF as beingempowered to accredit courses of study and to issue qualifications. It

is believed that inclusion on the AQF register signals that governments

CONTENTS



45


represented in MCEETYA vouch for the quality of the awards given by

the institutions concerned.

Current system of quality assurance

3.34 The current system of quality assurance operates at a number of

levels and includes the activities of professional associations and

associations and networks set up by groups of universities for

benchmarking and other quality assurance purposes. Some mech-

anisms such as peer review of research proposals and articles for

refereed journals are international in character, while others are local.

In summary, the main quality assurance mechanisms for universities

currently are as follows:

Internal processes within universities3.35 The internal quality assurance processes in Australian universities

are similar to those in other OECD countries. However, these

processes have been considerably strengthened since the early 1990s.

One major factor leading to improvements was the 1993–1995 national

quality assurance program and the publication of detailed reports

including information on good practice. The main internal processesinclude the following:

• Processes of assessment for new courses and units of study;

• Regular review of courses and units;

• Reviews of departments, faculties and research centres;

• Student evaluation of teaching;

• Use of external examiners for higher degree research theses and

sometimes bachelors honours theses;

• Surveys of graduates and employers to assess graduate satisfactionand information on course experience and suitability of graduates

for employment;

• Use of performance indicators for management purposes and for

the allocation of funding;

• Benchmarking and participation in networks which offer special

opportunities for benchmarking and sharing of information; and

• Special projects for the improvement of teaching and special

awards for teaching excellence.

CONTENTS



46


National mechanisms3.36 The current mechanisms include the following:

• Universities currently report on their quality assurance and

improvement plans that set out their goals, the strategies adopted

to achieve these, the indicators they use to assess their success in

achieving these goals. The first set of institutional plans in relation

to quality is about to be published by the Commonwealth.

• Encouragement of innovation and good teaching through

Committee on University Teaching and Staff Development and

specific initiatives funded by under the Higher Education Innovation

Program, including the development of an instrument to testgraduate generic skills;

• Publication of Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education

Institutions , a report which provides indicators covering such topics

as source of funds, distribution of expenses, research funding,

gender and age distribution of students, basis of admissions,

overseas students, mode of study, course breadth and staffing as

well as graduate satisfaction with their courses and employment

experience.

3.37 In addition, there are traditional peer review and assessment systems which are widely used in considering applications for competitive

research grants, and in handling articles and book manuscripts

submitted for publications to refereed journals and scholarly publishers

including University presses.

3.38 As already noted, from 1993 to 1995, a major national quality

assurance program operated. This was a three-year program

introduced by Peter Baldwin as Minister for Higher Education.

Although participation was voluntary, all universities participated.

Like a number of other national quality assurance programs that

were established in the late 1980s and early 1990s, this program was

based on academic audits of participating universities. This involved

self-assessment on a number of aspects following detailed guidelines,

evaluation of institutional submissions and review teams, visits to

campuses and public reporting by the Committee for Quality

Assurance in Higher Education. But what was markedly different was

that in the audits in the Australian program assessed not only quality

assurance processes but also quality outcomes. Further, the scheme

also included:

CONTENTS



47


• ranking of institutions into bands, based on annual assessments

of particular specified aspects of quality assurance, and publication

of these rankings;• publication of detailed individual annual reports on each

participating institution; and

• performance funding, with funding coming from a special

additional government allocation (Harman 1996b).

3.39 In retrospect, both critics and supporters agree that the positive effects

of the program were substantial, leading particularly to a more serious

approach to evaluation, increased attention to the assessment of

outputs and increased integration of strategic planning with budgeting.

Even now, it appears that many of these achievements remain, eventhough the 1993-1995 program was not followed by any substantial

quality assurance mechanism. At the same time, there is doubt about

whether the gains were worth the effort and costs involved and

certainly there is a large measure of agreement that the program had

serious effects on the reputations of lower performing universities and

their subsequent ability to attract both students and staff.

3.40 In contrast, the quality assurance programs introduced in a number of

European countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not publish

overall rankings of institutions or detailed reports on individualinstitutional assessments, or used performance funding in an overt

way. Most depended on either ‘horizontal’ national reviews of

disciplines or ‘vertical’ reviews of quality assurance processes in

individual universities, or a combination of these approaches. In the

Netherlands, for example, the system of quality assurance developed

in the late 1980s was based on horizontal reviews of academic

disciplines. While published reports discussed study programs in each

institution visited, there was no system of rankings of institutions and

no use of performance funding (Zijderveld 1997). In France, the

program included both institutional evaluations and disciplinary

assessments, with reports going to both universities and the Minister

responsible for the institutions visited. However, there was no system

of rankings and the results of the assessments were not used directly

in making annual allocations to institutions (van Vught 1994a).

Accreditation by professional bodies3.41 For many years, various professional bodies and association have

conducted accreditation of professional courses in fields such asmedicine, law, engineering and architecture. More recently,

accreditation systems have been developed for newer areas such

CONTENTS



48


as computer science, software engineering and various health

science areas. Professional associations have also formed a peak

body, the Australian Council of Professions, whose secretariat islocated in Canberra.

3.42 One of the oldest and most highly organised accreditation systems is

that run by the Institution of Engineers, Australia. There is no

compulsion on engineering schools to have their courses accredited

except that only graduates for accredited courses are eligible for

membership of the Institution. The accreditation process proceeds as

follows. Engineering schools make a detailed application following a

prescribed format. A panel of three members is appointed to conduct

the review and in addition consultant panel members are appointedfor each engineering speciality to be considered. After receiving advice

from the consultant members, the three core members visit the

institution for two days for discussions with staff and students, and to

view facilities. However, consultant members may join the visit if they

have particular concerns. Following the visit, a draft report is prepared

by the Chair and the other core members of the panel and this is

circulated to the university and consultant members for comment.

Panels may recommend accreditation or provisional accreditation, or

may recommend that accreditation is refused. Accreditation is for a

period of five years after which each course must be re-accredited. In

its accreditation system, the Institution does not rank universities or

publish performance data. In its work in accreditation and quality

assurance the Institution of Engineers works closely with the Council

of Deans of Engineering Schools, especially in promoting best practice

and methods of benchmarking.

3.43 Currently the Institution of Engineers is implementing a new approach

to accreditation, following a review of engineering education in 1996-

1997 conducted jointly with the Australian Council of Engineering

Deans, and the Academy of Technologicial Sciences and Engineering

(Changing the Culture 1996; and Beyond the Boundaries 1998). In its

executive summary, the review explained that an initial finding was

‘the need for a culture change in engineering education, ultimately to

extend throughout the profession’ (Changing the Culture 1996, p 7).

The report went on:

The present emphasis placed on engineering science resulting

in graduates with high technical capacity has often acted to

limit their appreciation of the broader role of engineering

professionals. Graduates must understand the social,economic and environmental consequences of their

CONTENTS



49


professional activities if the profession is fully to assume its

expanding consequences (Changing the Culture 1996, p 7).

3.44 The review was conducted because of concern that engineering

education tended to be somewhat introverted and in the modern

world needed to produce graduates better able to interact with other

professionals. This in turn prompted the review committee to think

much more in terms of the desired outcomes for graduates.

3.45 This new approach focusses mainly on graduate attributes rather than

inputs. The Institution is now well advanced in implementing the new

approach. The framework was piloted in 1998 and since then two

rounds of reviews have been completed. By the end of 1999, the new

approach will have been employed in assessments in half the total

number of engineering schools.

3.46 Documentation explains that, under the new approach to

accreditation, engineering education at university level ‘provides the

learning base upon which competence for a professional engineering

career is built’ and that it is important ‘that the education provides the

graduate with … generic attributes’ (Policy of Accreditation of Courses

1999, p 1). Generic attributes for a graduate are specified as follows:

• ability to apply knowledge of basic science and engineeringfundamentals;

• ability to communicate effectively, not only with engineers

but also with the community at large;

• in depth technical competence in at least one engineering

discipline;

• ability to undertake problem identification, formulation

and solution;

• ability to utilise a systems approach to design and operational

performance;

• ability to function effectively as an individual and in

multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams with the capacity

to be a leader or manager as well as an effective team member;

• understanding of the social, cultural, global, environmental

and business responsibilities (including an understanding of

entrepreneurship and the process of innovation) of the

Professional Engineer, and the need for and principles of

sustainable development;

• understanding of an commitment to professional and ethicalresponsibilities; and

• a capacity to undertake lifelong learning.

CONTENTS



50


3.47 In implementing the new system of accreditation, the Institution has

found that it is necessary to try to achieve a balance between an

emphasis on outcomes and processes. Engineering schools also havefound some difficulties in assessing particular graduate attributes, but

the view of the Institution is that it is the responsibility of engineering

schools to explain what they are doing and how they make educat-

ional judgments and on what basis. Overall, the Institution considers

that engineering schools have been receptive to the changes.

3.48 To date, the Institution of Engineers has not been requested to

accredit courses offered by private universities or other private

providers. However, it is well aware of the likely problems with

‘off-shore’ teaching of international students and has adopted thepolicy that in accrediting an engineering program the engineering

school must provide documentary detail on all pathways to graduation

including courses offered at branch campuses, overseas campuses,

by distance education, or through twinning of franchise arrangements.

In the case of off-shore campuses, and twining and franchise

arrangements the Institution requires information especially on

teaching and assessment methods, staff qualifications and staff

development for all academic personnel involved, whether they are

employed by the University or a partner, and academic standards.

Alternatively, accreditation of a twinning or other off-shore teaching

operation may be treated as a separate accreditation.

3.49 The Institution of Engineers has close relationships with parallel

bodies in other countries. It has been deeply involved in the

development of the Washington Accord, an agreement between

eight industrial countries about equivalence of engineering degrees,

and regularly exchanges information and documentation with fraternal

associations.

Special protection for international students3.50 Special Commonwealth mechanisms, consisting of legislation and a

register of courses, have been put in place to provide protection for

international students. As already noted, The Education Services for

Overseas Students (Registration of providers and Financial Regulation)

Act 1991 helps ensure that only quality courses are offered to foreign

students studying in Australia. All providers offering education and

training services to overseas students must be accredited to providespecific course (and approved to provide these courses to overseas

students) by relevant State and Territory authorities, and be registered

CONTENTS



51


on the Commonwealth register of International Courses for Overseas

Students. For Commonwealth registration, institutions must supply

additional information including audited balance sheets, and have adesignated trust account, a tuition assurance scheme, and a specific

student fee refund policy. However, these mechanisms generally do

not apply to international students studying ‘off-shore’ in campuses

established by Australian providers, or under twinning of franchise

arrangements. This legislation was amended in 1998 to provide for a

three year extension to the original sunset clause, following a review

which demonstrated universal agreement amongst stakeholders that

continuation of the cooperative model as provided under the act was

appropriate for the future regulation of the industry.

3.51 Some additional protection is provided by State legislation. In Victoria,

for example, the Tertiary Education Act 1993 gives the Minister power

to endorse or cancel the endorsement of any course offered by a

post-secondary education provider as suitable for overseas students.

In deciding whether or not to endorse a course, the Minister may take

into account a number of matters including financial planning,

marketing and promotional material, use of agents contracts with

respect to students, student grievance procedures, welfare of students

and student housing and accommodation as well as more academic

matters including student selection procedures curriculum and course

nomenclature (Section 6).

Assessment3.52 While there are many strengths associated with the current quality

assurance and accreditation arrangements for higher education, at the

same time there are clear weaknesses that need attention. Perhaps the

major weakness with respect to quality assurance is that there is nonational agency, responsible for quality assurance that can publicly

vouch for the quality of Australian higher education. This stands in

contrast to the situation in the Netherlands, France, the United

Kingdom and New Zealand. Associated with this is the problem that

the rigour with which individual universities pursue quality assurance

across all aspects is almost entirely at their discretion, even though

there are some safeguards with the requirement to have quality

assurance and improvement plans and with the use of publication

of various performance indicators. The lack of a national agency

is widely acknowledged as a drawback in the international marketingof Australian higher education. Amongst both government officials and

CONTENTS



52


university management there is wide recognition of the need for a

stronger mechanism related to off-shore education.

3.53 With regard to accreditation, there is clearly a need for uniform

approaches and criteria across the States and Territories. Also needed

are an increase degree of sharing of information and documentation

on an ongoing basis between the various accrediting agencies and

a better system of reporting and public access to information

concerning which courses have been accredited and which providers

have been given approval to operate as self-accrediting institutions.

Some accrediting agencies have detailed criteria whereas in other

cases the criteria are brief and possibly inadequate. Some accrediting

agencies cover areas related to business plans and financial viability.Some provide for the accreditation of both institutions and courses

while others deal with course accreditation only. Some have lists

available of the courses that have been accredited whereas others

do not. In most cases there is some difficulty with regard to what

extent accreditation should be dependent on minimum standards of

facilities including library holdings, and this is becoming more difficult

with the use of distance and on-line teaching and use of on-line

library and reference sources. Some State agencies are well staffed

while others have been reduced to a bare minimum of personnel

and thus unable to offer effective services.

CONTENTS



53


4 The changing quality

environment and theModern Australian Model

4.1 In a number of important respects, the quality assurance environment

for Australian higher education has changed to a marked extent in

recent years. This chapter will first outline some of these changes and

the pressures that are driving them, and then comment on key

features of the proposed Modern Australian Model of quality assurance and accreditation.

The changing quality environment4.2 The changes over the past decade in the environment with regard to

quality assurance and accreditation have been substantial and some-

what unexpected. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, these changes led

the Commonwealth Minister for Higher Education at the time, Peter

Baldwin, to request the Higher Education Council to review quality assurance practices and outcomes in Commonwealth funded instit-

utions and to recommend a process of external review. About the

same time, a number of States introduced new legislation giving

additional powers of accreditation and control over providers offering

higher education courses to international students.

4.3 In the past four years, however, since the end of the 1993–1995

quality assurance program, there have been various further important

developments, which make review and strengthening Australia’s

accreditation and quality assurance arrangements urgent. These variouschanges can be summarised under the headings of globalisation and

changes in educational technology, international recognition of

qualifications, recent changes in quality assurance in other indust-

rialised countries, new quality assurance arrangements in Australia’s

‘off-shore’ education destinations, the needs of Australia’s education

export industry, increasing accountability pressures at home, incidents

with private providers and the increased number of private providers,

and complaints from applicants seeking accreditation.

CONTENTS



54


Globalisation and changes in educational technology 4.4 Globalisation and rapid changes in educational delivery technologies

are creating substantial changes internationally. Globalisation has

meant that employers, government agencies, professionals and

students are better acquainted than ever with developments in other

countries. Bad news affecting international education now circulates

more rapidly. Developments in electronic communications enable

higher education providers to offer courses in new forms by distance

education, both in Australia and overseas. Electronic communications

are also providing students with access to new forms of educational

resources. Now in many disciplines students may use resources

available on the web as much as traditional library resources. Inaddition, the new electronic communications are enabling overseas

higher education competitors to provide education services within

Australia as well as targeting Australian overseas education markets,

especially in Asia. All this in turn is creating pressures for concerted

action by institutions and government agencies within and across

countries to improve quality assurance and controls over new

providers.

4.5 Another side of globalisation is the increased ability by both

governments, students and potential students to compare the coursesand awards of courses offered by providers in different countries.

In many cases detail of courses is available on the web.

International recognition of qualifications4.6 Globalisation, increased mobility of skilled personnel, international

mobility of students and offering of higher education courses across

national boundaries has led to increased mobility of labour and to

increased pressures for reciprocal relations in the recognition of

academic and professional qualifications. This in turn raises important

questions about the standards of qualifications offered by Australian

providers and the mechanisms used to guarantee quality and the

academic and professional standards of awards.

4.7 Staff in NOOSR experience considerable frustration about the lack of a

national quality assurance mechanism in Australia. They speak openly

of the ‘charade of Australian quality assurance’. They explain that, in

their experience, enquirers from government agencies and professional

bodies in other countries are often puzzled by the lack of a govern-

ment backed national quality assurance agency in Australia, while at

other times spokespersons in other countries are openly critical of lack

CONTENTS



55


of equivalent agencies to that found in the United Kingdom, France,

the Netherlands and New Zealand.

4.8 In many overseas countries with which NOOSR has close cooperation,

there is considerable concern about the activities of private higher

education institutions, ‘fly-by-nighters’ and degree mills. NOOSR staff

also see the need for a strong quality assurance framework to facilitate

the international marketing of education and to assist in the recog-

nition of Australian qualifications in other countries.

4.9 A particular need for a strong national quality assurance agency relates

to international conventions and agreements signed by Australia with

regard to the recognition of post-secondary education qualifications.

The three key conventions where Australia is a signatory are the

UNESCO convention on the recognition of qualifications for the

European region, the UNESCO convention for the recognition of

qualifications in Asia, and the recent Lisbon Convention on the recog-

nition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European

region. While the requirements of these conventions may not be

regarded as particularly onerous, they do require signatory countries

to provide pathways for the recognition of overseas qualifications and

detailed information on local higher education qualifications and their

standing. According to the Lisbon Convention, each signatory country is required to provide adequate information on any institution belong-

ing to its higher education system and on any program operated by

these institutions with a view ‘to enabling competent authorities of

other Parties to ascertain the quality of the qualifications issued by

these institutions’. According to the Convention, such information shall

take the following form:

(i) in the case of Parties having established a system of formal

assessment of higher education institutions and programmes:

information on the methods and results of this assessment, and of the standards of quality specific to each type of higher education

institution granting, and or programmes leading to, higher

education qualifications.

(ii) in the case of Parties which have not established a system of

formal assessment of higher education institutions and

programmes: information on the recognition of the various

qualifications obtained at any higher education institution, or

within any higher education programme, belonging to their higher

education systems (Council of Europe 1997, Article VIII.1).

With many European countries establishing more rigorous national

systems of quality assurance, it seems reasonable to predict that in the

CONTENTS



56


future international conventions may well expect all signatories to

have national systems of quality assurance in place.

4.10 In addition to conventions, Australia has signed various agreements or

memoranda of understanding with other countries concerning the

recognition of qualifications. Two recent agreements were the

agreement with Italy of 1996 and the memorandum of understanding

with Germany of 1998. While neither agreement explicitly mentions

quality assurance, it is likely that in future negotiations national quality

assurance mechanisms may become of increasingly importance.

Further, it is clear that in the various bilateral negotiations to date

there have been various points of dispute and in the future on such

points it is possible that much more weight could be given to the views of national quality assurance agencies.

4.11 For the future an issue of particular importance is whether the

Australian graduates from off-shore operations will be included in

bilateral agreements and multilateral conventions. Associated with this

is a generally growing concern about the proliferation of awards

especially at the postgraduate level, and the considerable variations in

the length of courses.

Recent changes in quality assurance made by other industrialised countries4.12 Among both many senior officials in government and senior manage-

ment in universities, there is a wide appreciation that a number of

other countries have made recent changes to strengthen their accred-

itation and quality assurance arrangements. In particular, there has

been considerable interest in the establishment and development of the

new Quality Assurance Agency in Britain and the proposed Qual-

ifications Authority in New Zealand. These developments reinforce the

view that Australia’s quality assurance mechanisms do not stand up

well internationally. At a recent international quality assurance

conference, speakers from Britain drew attention to Australia’s lack of a

national quality assurance agency. In addition, since countries in the

Asia Pacific region often look to Australia not only as a source of

university education but to benchmark for their own university

standards, Australia needs an exemplary record in quality assurance

and efforts to monitor academic standards.

CONTENTS



57


New quality assurance arrangements in off-shoreeducation countries4.13 Another factor prompting review and strengthening of quality

assurance mechanisms is that a number of counties in the Asia Pacific

region have recently strengthened their own quality assurance

mechanisms and are showing increasing concern about allowing

foreign universities to operate within their borders. Malaysia recently

has established an Accreditation Board that will cover the activities

of foreign providers as well as local institutions, while in Hong Kong

new regulations govern the activities of foreign universities operating

in the Territory. The establishment of the Accreditation Board in

Malaysia has been prompted by the Malaysian Government’s wishto encourage high quality foreign universities to establish campuses

in Malaysia.

4.14 In India, a case went to the High Court of Madras in 1997 concerning

the operations of an overseas university within India and to date this

case has not been concluded. At issue here is whether institutions

other than those specified under the 1956 University Grants

Commission legislation can grant degrees in India. Essentially, this

legislation specifies that only universities incorporated under Indian

federal or state legislation can grant degrees. In March 1997, theMonopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission restrained

16 institutions from offering courses on the grounds they were not

approved institutions, while in July 1997 the High Court of Madras

issued an order restraining foreign universities from granting degrees,

directly or indirectly, in India. The catalyst for this was a series of

advertisements inserted by a number of agents regarding admission to

various international courses without making it clear that these

courses were being offered in countries outside of India. One such

advertisement was by two Australian agents for admission to an MBA

course. The case came up for hearing on 27 August 1997 with the

Government of India being named as one of the respondents. In view

of various allegations made in Asian and Pacific countries about the

operations of foreign universities, it seems likely that more effort will

be made by countries within the region to regulate the activities of

foreign institutions. One common allegation made in India is that

some foreign universities are dumping low quality courses in Asian

countries that these institutions would not be allowed to offer in their

home countries.

CONTENTS



58


Needs of Australia’s education export industry 4.15 One of the strongest arguments put by many of those interviewed for

strengthening quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms relates

to providing additional safeguards to protect Australia’s higher

education and VET export business. Australia’s export education

business continues to expand and is a major source of income both

for providers and the country. To safeguard this industry, it is widely

argued that there needs to be a national quality assurance agency as

well as better mechanisms to accredit private higher education

providers and courses. Many make the point that the VET system is

much better placed than higher education to guarantee quality through

government sponsored agencies.

4.16 In our discussions, a number of informants made the point that while

the number of unfortunate incidents related to quality and accred-

itation with Australian providers were few to date, it is possible that

even fairly minor but widely-publicized incidents could have

particularly damaging effects. Such cases are often difficult to repair

and their effects can continue for substantial periods. Disaffected staff

can do considerable damage in making allegations about low

academic standards and failure to follow specified procedures,

whether or not these allegations might be true.

4.17 Various unfortunate events in the late 1980s and early 1990s,

particularly the closure of private institutions, prompted the passage of

both Commonwealth legislation and separate legislation in some

States, and that in a number of cases the Commonwealth had to

provide substantial funds to assist affected students. Closures of

colleges in the late 1980s, resulting from the inability of a number of

private providers to refund prepaid course fees to students who were

refused student visas under tightened entry measures applied by the

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in response toevidence of non-compliance with student visa conditions, predom-

inantly from the People’s Republic of China, led to students in many

cases being without a higher education place and the funds to pay

fees. This in turn led to the 1991 Commonwealth Education Services

for Overseas Students Act. As a result of these incidents, the

Commonwealth expended over $66 million in refunds to students,

with only $4.5 million being eventually recovered. In 1993, two

liquidated colleges closed in Western Australia with no funds being

held in special trust accounts and the Commonwealth had to provide

$1.3 million in assistance to students.

CONTENTS



59


4.18 Expansion of off-shore operations through the establishment of

university campuses in foreign countries, twinning and franchising

arrangements, and the delivery of courses to students in othercountries by distance education, or a combination of distance

education and face-to-face teaching, is creating new needs for more

rigorous quality assurance mechanisms. As already noted, almost

23 000 of Australia’s international higher education student are

enrolled through various ‘off-shore’ arrangements. ‘Off-shore’ delivery

creates special management problems for providers and makes the

need of well-developed, detailed administrative procedures and

review mechanisms even more necessary.

4.19 Various well publicised incidents pointing to administrative and otherfailures of British higher education providers in ‘off-shore’ endeavours

point to the kind of difficulties that similar incidents could have for

Australian education exports. The most recent case was about the

University of Derby and its off-shore operations in Israel (Times

Higher Education Supplement, 23 July 1999). It is alleged that, for

financial reasons, the University has been admitting unqualified

students to degree courses and that it has been ‘dumbing down’

courses. These allegations have prompted an enquiry by the Israeli

quality assurance agency.

4.20 A number of the major Australian higher education providers well

recognise the dangers in off-shore delivery and in response have

developed additional management and monitoring processes and have

put in place their own quality assurance audits. Monash University,

for example, has in place regular internal reviews of each of its ‘off-

shore’ operations, with each of these being chaired by an external

member with special expertise in quality assurance and accreditation.

In addition, Monash has contracted with an international quality

assurance agency to conduct regular external audits of each off-shore

operation. RMIT has similar internal reviews in place and in addition

has used auditors from the Quality Assurance Services to gain

ISO certification.

4.21 As already noted, another concern about ‘off-shore’ operations is

whether all ‘off-shore’ courses in particular professional areas such

as accounting are covered by accreditation conducted by Australian

professional associations. Comparatively little information is available

on this matter, but it could be a particular problem in cases where all

teaching and examining is conducted by academic staff employed by

partner institutions operating under franchise arrangements.

CONTENTS



60


Increasing accountability pressures at home4.22 Generally in the Australian community pressures continue to grow for

increased accountability of public institutions and of government

funding or subsidies. In the case of higher education, this is likely to

increase further as public universities become more commercial in

orientation. Further, community concern seems likely to demand

stronger quality assurance mechanisms as the higher education system

moves increasingly to further competition between institutions and

possibly towards a system of student based funding.

Incidents with private providers and increased numbersof private providers4.23 A small number of well-publicised cases concerning private providers

has raised the level of concern generally about quality assurance and

accreditation mechanisms. This concern has been felt particularly by

Ministers, government officials and those universities with large

commitments in the areas of international education and with links

with private institutions.

4.24 In our discussions, various informants mentioned the University of

Greenwich case, the case of the two institutions from South Australia which had secured approval for the use of the word university in

company titles and various cases of private VET providers and

language training schools closing because of insolvency. Apparently

the University of Greenwich made enquiries from at least two

government accrediting agencies in States and Territories before

approaching the Norfolk Island administration.

4.25 The number of private providers offering accredited higher education

courses clearly has increased substantially over the past five years and

there are rumours of considerable interest by overseas universitiesabout establishing campuses in Australia or delivering courses to

Australian students by distance education. These overseas providers

include major American universities as well as ‘no-frills’ providers.

Complaints from applicants seeking accreditation4.26 Another reason why State and Territory officials are concerned about

current accreditation and quality assurance arrangements is that over

the past five years there have been an increasing number of complaints from private providers seeking accreditation.

CONTENTS



61


4.27 Smith (1998) reports that there have been various complaints from

private providers who sometimes complain that the accreditation

process is biased against them. In particular, it is sometimes allegedby applicants that the ‘playing field’ is not level and that University

academics on accreditation committees are not flexible enough to

appreciate different paradigms and emerging disciplines. Private

providers also suspect that the time taken in considering some course

accreditation proposals is evidence that members of panels from

public universities are trying to protect vested interests.

4.28 On the other hand, it should be noted that most of the relevant

legislation is sufficiently general in wording and intent to cater

adequately for diversity in course applications. Smith (1998, p 8)points out that in New South Wales accrediting panels:

… are required to assess whether a proposed course displays

academic objectivity and rigour and enables intellectual

inquiry and discourse which are essential features in any

higher education course. Panels do not concern themselves

with the desirability of or need for a course, other than to be

satisfied that there is sufficient demand to make a program

academically viable.

4.29 Another common problem is that the role of review panels in

accreditation is often not well understood. In each case, panels are

appointed to evaluate submissions and offer advice to the Minister or

the approving authority, and are not responsible for offering advice

and assistance to applicants. At the same time in making assessments,

panels often provide comment which applicants sometimes take

aboard to modify and improve their proposals, but this function is not

part of the formal responsibilities of panels.

4.30 Still another problem is that often the appeal process is not well

understood. In Victoria, for example, unsuccessful applicants have

the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which has

been in place since 1993. However, to date there have been few

appeals and no appeal has proceeded to a formal hearing or

judgment (Smith 1998, p 10).

CONTENTS



62


The Modern Australian Model

4.31 The Modern Australian Model of quality assurance and accreditationproposed by DETYA has many strengths. In the first place, it makes

important distinctions between the functions of accreditation and

quality assurance and between the possible treatment of self-accrediting

institutions and non-self accrediting providers. In Chapter 2, we defined

both accreditation and quality assurance. Both terms are used

internationally in a variety of ways, but in the Australian context they

have developed particular meanings. In summary, quality assurance

in Australian higher education has come to refer to a range of manage-

ment and assessment procedures to monitor performance, to ensure

the quality of outputs and to give stakeholders confidence, whereas in

relation to government agencies accreditation refers to a process of

assessment and review leading to recognition of a higher education

provider or higher education course. As already noted, while closely

related the two processes are somewhat different. For one thing

accreditation is primarily concerned with new institutions and new

courses, whereas quality assurance generally relates to the activities of

established institutions. At the same time, it is seems highly desirable

that there should be linkages between accreditation and quality

assurance procedures and that information should be shared in thecase that the two functions are carried out by separate agencies.

This need for linkages is even more important if the functions are to

be carried out by separate levels of government.

4.32 With regard to the distinction between self-accrediting institutions and

others, it is important that adequate consideration should be given to

the special characteristics of both sets of institutions, since they often

differ significantly in size and administrative depth. However, ideally

any new quality assurance mechanism should have the capacity to

cover all higher education providers. In our interviews, a number of

respondents made that point that, as far as possible, all higher

education providers should be treated in a similar manner. It should

be noted that for the 1993–1995 quality assurance program only public

universities participated.

4.33 DETYA documentation specifies that quality assurance and

accreditation mechanisms should satisfy a number of criteria. The

mechanisms relating to self-accrediting institutions should not be solely

at the discretion of the institutions themselves; there needs to be some

external review or audit of the claims made by institutions about

quality and standards; the mechanisms should be credible with inter-

national and domestic interest groups, and should and be able to

CONTENTS



63


protect the international reputation of Australian awards; the

mechanisms should help satisfy Australian taxpayers of value for

money; any audit mechanism should have rigour, but at the same timebe cost effective, not unnecessarily intrusive and be able to retain the

cooperation of the public universities; and the mechanisms should

provide legal clarity for students and providers and be able to

promote good practice and facilitate improvement. We support these

as desirable principles.

Other options4.34 In its documentation, DETYA refers to four alternative options to the

Modern Australian Model. These are refinements to the current

Australian model, the New Zealand model, the British Quality

Assurance Agency Model and the VET sector model.

4.35 Refinement of the current Australian model provides for enhanced

accreditation processes which remain in the hands of the States and

Territories, with institutions continuing to take major responsibility for

their own quality assurance but with encouragement to strengthen

these processes through benchmarking, and use of external audits

such as having processes assessed according to ISO standards, andminor modifications to legislation. While the suggested improvements

would provide for worthwhile improvements, the major difficulty is

that Australia’s arrangements would fall far behind practice in a

number of competitor countries and would do little to provide

additional safeguards for the higher education export industry, or to

lend additional international credibility to Australian awards. The

biggest gap is the absence of some national agency that can certify

the quality of Australian higher education.

4.36 The recently modified New Zealand model has a number of strengths.In particular, it provides for a strong national government agency with

an appropriate legislative base, it includes an institutional audit

process and it provides for a coordinated approach for the whole

tertiary education sector. On the other hand, it is by no means certain

how successful will be the approach of the Quality Assurance

Authority in granting recognition to accreditation providers, especially

in terms of achieving a reasonably uniform coverage in audits across

different sectors and in gaining international recognition and local

credibility. The appointment of only one accreditation agency thatfailed to deliver according to specifications could be sufficient to do

major damage to the system. Presumably one reason for adopting this

CONTENTS



64


approach is that since the early 1990s the university sector has had its

own Academic Audit Unit and this system appears to be working well.

Under the new arrangements, we assume that the New Zealanduniversities may choose to retain the services of the Academic

Audit Unit. It should be noted, however, the Academic Audit Unit

has not covered the work of the 25 polytechnics and four colleges

of education.

4.37 The New Zealand Academic Unit was set up with the following terms

of reference:

• to consider and review the universities’s mechanisms for monitoring

and enhancing the academic quality and standards which are

necessary for achieving their stated aims and objectives;

• to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in

individual universities are applied effectively;

• to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in

individual universities reflect good practice in maintaining

quality; and

• to identify and commend to universities good practice with

regard to maintenance of academic standards at national level

(Woodhouse 1997, p 72).

In fulfilling these terms of reference, the Academic Audit Unit focuses

on mechanisms for quality assurance in the design, monitoring and

evaluation of courses in teaching, learning and assessment, in relation

to the appointment and performance of academic staff, and in

research. The Unit is instructed to take account with respect to

academic matters of the views of students, external examiners,

professional bodies and employers. The Unit is funded jointly by the

universities but is independent otherwise of the universities indiv-

idually and the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. Audit reports are public

documents and there is considerable pressure on universitiesto take seriously any criticisms made. As in other institutional audit

programs, universities carry out self audits before the visit of panels.

Panels are made up of academics from New Zealand and overseas

universities and members of the business community.

4.38 The new United Kingdom model based on the Quality Assurance

Agency which was established in 1997 is still developing its

procedures. However, to date its proposals have been somewhat

controversial and it has still to secure strong support from the well-

established group of older research universities. Further, in thejudgement of many experts, the stated goals of the Agency appear to

be somewhat unrealistic and to date many of the Agency’s proposals

CONTENTS



65


have raised considerable controversy. Observers question the extent to

which the Agency appears likely to intrude substantially into the work

of universities and the extent of funding that a fully operational Agency will need.

4.39 It is important to recognise, however, that in the past decade there

have been three other important British experiments in quality

assurance, one of which is on-going. First, the Committee of Vice-

Chancellors and Principals established the Academic Audit Unit, which

in turn became the Higher Education Quality Council following

abolition of the binary system. This development was based on the

idea of institutional audits of quality assurance processes in the

context of an institution’s stated aims and objectives. The aim wasto ensure public accountability for the maintenance and improvement

of academic quality by finding out how institutions discharge their

obligations to provide high quality education and satisfy themselves

about the academic standards they seek to uphold (Williams 1997,

pp110–111). A report in 1996 at the end of the second round of audits

noted that quality assurance procedures had become the norm in the

higher education sector.

4.40 Second, in the early 1990s, the higher education funding councils

established a system of quality assurance for teaching based on theassessment of disciplines. The purpose of these assessments was to

‘ensure that quality was satisfactory or better, to encourage improve-

ment, to inform funding and to reward excellence’ (Williams 1997).

Student learning experiences and achievements were assessed against

the provider’s aims and objectives. The process involved a self-

assessment by the department, a visit to the department by external

assessors (mainly academics from other institutions trained by the

funding council), and judgements made on the quality of education

through observation of teaching and learning, scrutiny of students’

work and discussions with staff and students. Initially, the method-

ology developed by the Higher Education Funding Council of England

(HEFCE) involved selective visits to subject providers on the basis of

self assessments submitted, and this resulted in the award of the

grades of excellent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Where no visits took

place, subject providers were awarded a satisfactory grade. Criticisms

of this methodology forced the HEFCE to revise its approach to one

based around a graded profile of subject areas constructed against six

aspects of provision (curriculum; teaching; learning and assessment;

student progress and achievement; support and guidance provided;and quality assurance arrangements).

CONTENTS



66


4.41 Third, since 1986 the higher education funding councils have

conducted periodical assessments of research known as the Research

Assessment Exercise (RAE). The purpose is to provide quality rankingsfor research carried out in each of the major subject areas in all

government-funded higher education institutions. The last 1996 in

RAE, which followed earlier exercises in 1986, 1989 and 1992, was

conducted jointly by HEFCE, the Scottish Higher Education Funding

Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and the

Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Each of these bodies

distributes funds selectively to institutions on the basis of the quality

judgements made by expert RAE panels and funds are intended to

sustain a strong research infrastructure and a range of curiosity-driven

basic and strategic research activities (Harman 1999).

4.42 RAE ratings are awarded by subject panels (60 panels in 1996 for

69 assessment areas) of about 10 members each, made up of

distinguished researchers in the particular subject, appointed after

consultation with interested bodies such as learned societies and

professional associations (Research Assessment Exercise: Criteria for

Assessment 1995). Higher education institutions in 1996 could submit

for assessment any research carried out within the previous four years

by those of their current staff they wished to present from the

nominated subject areas. Universities were able to decide which

departments to put forward for assessment and which staff in each

department. Some universities presented only a small number of their

total departments and staff for assessment, while high performing

universities generally presented all departments and practically all

academic staff.

4.43 Assessments are based entirely upon the written materials submitted.

A standard electronic template is used across all institutions and

subjects, and this includes:

• details of those staff whose work is offered for assessment in each

subject area and selected recent research outputs for each of them

(up to four per staff member);

• other information about research activity and the units of

assessment (eg numbers of research students, and research grant

and contract income from various sources); and

• information about the institution’s support for research in each

subject area (departmental structure, facilities and research plans)

and other key information.

CONTENTS



67


4.44 In 1996 panels awarded a rating for each individual subject

submission on a seven point standard scale, ranging from 1 (research

quality that equates to attainable levels of national excellence in none,or virtually none, of the sub-areas of the activity) to 5* (research

quality that equates to attainable levels of international excellence

in a majority of sub-areas of activity and attainable levels of national

excellence in all others) (Research Assessment Exercise: Guidance

for Submissions 1995, Annex B).

4.45 The RAE is a peer review exercise with ‘assessments being made

by the panels in the light of their collective knowledge and exper-

ience of their field of academic research’ (Research Assessment

Exercise: Criteria for Assessment 1995, p 1). In each case, panels areconcerned with making judgements about quality based primarily on

selective reading of listed works and other evidence of reputation and

standing as set out in supplementary documentation. In making its

assessment, each panel takes into account only the work of those staff

listed as being ‘research active’.

4.46 Each of the funding bodies uses RAE results in somewhat different

ways for allocating block grant funding to universities. For example,

the HEFCE in 1998–1999 allocated 804 million pounds sterling on

the basis of 1996 rankings. The total funds were allocated between69 subject areas or ‘Units of Assessment’. Allocations to each

department were based on the ranking given in the RAE, the cost

weight of the subject area, and the number of research active

academic staff. Only departments that are awarded a 3b or better

receive funding.

4.47 The sum of 804 million pounds sterling allocated to all English higher

education institutions by the HEFCE in the funding year 1998–1999

amounted to 20.7 per cent of total funds allocated for teaching and

research. The largest total research allocations went in order to theUniversity of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, University College

London, and Imperial College. Many of the strongest research

intensive universities received 50 per cent or more of their total

HEFCE allocation on the basis for research, while in a number of

ex-polytechnic universities the total research component amounted

to less than half a million pounds and far less than 1 per cent of their

total grant.

4.48 The RAE is a costly and labour-intensive form of assessment, both in

terms of administrative costs centrally (2.25 million pounds in 1996)and in the time demands it makes on academics and academic and

administrative departments. Academic departments play a major role

CONTENTS



68


in planning strategies and in collecting data but university central

administrations also play key roles in collecting data and providing

overall coordination. The end result in each university is what onesenior academic described as ‘a mountain of documentation’.

A particularly heavy burden is borne by the assessment panels, which

in 1996 considered the work of some 3 000 departments and 56 000

academics in 192 participating higher education institutions.

4.49 According to various reports, the RAE has had various unintended

consequences, such as generating suspicion about the integrity of data

submitted by other universities, helping to break down traditions of

collegiality, encouraging academics to put additional efforts into

seeking external research funding and adopting strategies to maximisethe number of publications (such as dividing papers into two or more

shorter papers and publishing books as journal articles prior to pub-

lication of the full work). Others have criticised the lack of a clearly

articulated philosophy for the RAE, possible defects in a peer review

approach and the fact that while RAE funding is on such a basis it is

very difficult for less strong institutions to attract additional funding in

to order to build on their strengths. Some newer universities have put

considerable effort into building up research capacity of particular

departments, but generally these efforts have attracted little additional

funding and within such universities there is often considerable ill-

feeling about the fairness of the RAE and about the indirect adverse

effects it has on teaching.

4.50 The current VET model of accreditation and quality assurance is now

well accepted in the VET sector and widely supported by industry.

It zalso has won admiration from various senior government officials,

some who have suggested that it provides a suitable model for a

strengthened quality assurance and accreditation mechanism for

higher education.

4.51 The VET model has separate but related national mechanisms of

accreditation and quality assurance. Accreditation of training providers

certifies that the training meets industry needs and this is the

responsibility of the States and Territories. It is based on the Australian

Recognition Framework (ARF) which is a quality assured approach to

the registration of training organisations seeking to deliver training,

assess competency outcomes, and issue qualifications. In the past only

private providers had to be registered but now all trainers need to be

registered. National standards for registration comprise four sets of

Standards and Evidence Requirements, which give effect to theNational Principles. The registration cycle comprises four elements:

CONTENTS



69


initial registration, self assessment and evaluation, compliance audit,

and re-registration. Training organisations can by registered either for

(a) the provisions of training delivery, assessment and issuingnationally recognised qualifications and statements of attainment, or

(b) the provision of skill recognition services and issuing of nationally

recognised qualifications and statements of attainment. Registered

Training Organisations (RTOs) may be delegated power to self

manage the scope of their registration and/or self manage accred-

itation functions. RTOs may include TAFE colleges and institutes,

private commercial providers, community providers, schools, higher

education institutions, enterprises and firms, industry bodies and any

organisation that meets the requirements for registration.

The Standards and Evidence Requirements contain a core which all

organisations seeking registration must meet; product/service standards

for organisations seeking to deliver training, assess qualifications and

issue certificates and qualifications; product/service standards for

organisations seeking to provide skill recognition only and to issue

certificates and qualifications; and separate standards for Quality

Endorsement which provide for organisations to self-accredit courses

and/or self manage the scope of their registration, and which will

operate in conjunction with the quality assurance systems of each State

and Territory (Australian National Training Authority 1998 and 1999).

4.52 One of the main VET sector mechanisms of quality assurance is the

national approval of Training Packages that define competencies for

particular areas and the qualifications to be issued. These Packages

are comprehensive, integrated products that provide national bench-

marks and resources for the delivery, assessment and qualifications.

They comprise endorsed components of national competency

standards, assessment guidelines and qualifications, combined with

non-endorsed components which may include learning strategies,

assessment resources and professional development materials. TrainingPackages their main emphasis on outcomes and are meant to provide

a more flexible approach than accredited courses. Approval of

Training Packages is the responsibility of the National Training

Framework Committee, which reports to the ANTA Board. To date

35 Packages have been approved.

4.53 In our discussions, we were surprised to find little support for the

idea of integration of VET and higher education quality assurance

systems. Rather, most respondents, whether in universities, govern-

ment agencies or ANTA, stressed the major differences between the VET and higher education sectors. On the other hand, it must be

admitted that there are some parallels between VET and higher

CONTENTS



70


education institutional accreditation for private providers performed

by the States and Territories.

4.54 Other important models not canvassed in the DETYA documentation

are the Dutch and French models of quality assurance. The Dutch

model is based on a well-organised program of disciplinary reviews,

while the French model uses both disciplinary reviews and instit-

utional audits. The Dutch program is operated by the VSNU, the

association representing the heads of Dutch Universities, while the

French program is the responsibility of a special government quality

assurance agency. The Dutch scheme of reviews does not have any

link to government funding of higher education institutions, while in

France the results of both disciplinary reviews and institutional auditsare used in developing funding allocations, although the precise links

are not made clear. The Dutch model would seem to be the more

useful to consider carefully, especially as irs system of disciplinary

assessments is well developed with extensive documentation being

available in English. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any

modification of Australian quality assurance mechanisms would be

able to introduce both disciplinary assessments and institutional audits

and, as will emerge in the following discussion, it is not clear how

easily a Dutch style model designed for about 15 universities could

be adapted to fit the needs of a public university system of

37 universities, plus private universities and other providers.

4.55 The current Dutch system of reviews of disciplines for both research

and teaching had its origins in restructured relationships between

higher education and the Ministry of Education and Science which

were achieved in the 1980s. Following publication in 1985 of the

policy paper, Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality , discussions

were held between the higher education sector and the Ministry.

In return for achieving increased financial and managerial autonomy,

higher education institutions agreed to establish of an assessment

mechanism that might demonstrate to society the delivery of quality

education. Originally the Government intended that the assessment

function would be carried out by the Inspectorate for Higher

Education but, after negotiations, it was agreed that responsibility

would lie with the Association of Cooperating Universities of the

Netherlands (VSNU) for the universities, and the Council for non-

university institutions for the HBOs. The University assessment began

with a pilot program in 1988 and commenced on a more formal basis

the following year. Under this system, visiting committees review study programmes in all universities on a six year cycle. In preparation for

the visiting committees, each participating study programme prepares

CONTENTS



71


a self-evaluation. Visiting committees consist of about seven members

and are appointed following consultations with the faculties to be

reviewed. During visits committees hold discussions with Deans,senior management, academic staff and students (van Vught 1994a).

4.56 The reviews of research have been particularly successful and the

detailed methodology used continues to attract considerable interest in

other countries. Over the period 1993–1997, 28 disciplines or

academic areas were reviewed, following a protocol that was agreed

to in 1994. In the case of medical research, the VSNU and the Royal

Netherlands Academy for Arts and Science shared responsibility for

the assessment. A number of smaller institutes, some outside the

university sector, were also assessed by special request. In 1997, the VSNU Committee on the Future of Quality Assurance evaluated the

reviews of research and, as a result, it was agreed to have a further

round under a slightly modified protocol which was agreed to in

1998. Under this new Protocol (VSNU 1998), there will be a much

greater emphasis on the context specific aspects of research programs

and faculties, and the review committees will be explicitly asked to

answer questions relating to the missions and the state of the art in

the academic area. The evaluation criteria continue to compromise the

elements of academic quality, productivity, relevance and viability but

the emphasis on context-specific aspects requires application of the

criteria in the light of the faculty or institute’s mission. The Protocol

states that, as ‘in the first round, the most important functions will be

quality assurance (improvement of university research quality as a

result of self-regulation within universities, faculties and research

institutes); accountability; and collection of information that can be

relevant to third parties (NSNU 1999, p ii).

4.57 No reports are yet available for reviews conducted under the new

protocol, but the 1996 review of earth sciences illustrates well the

approach used in the 1993–1997 round. The review of earth sciences

considered the work of five faculties and their 25 research prog-

rammes. In addition, at the request of the Board of the Leiden

Institute of Chemistry, the Committee also assessed Geo-biochemistry

in that Institute although it was originally assigned to the Chemistry

Review Committee. The assessment of earth sciences was conducted

by a review committee of seven members, all of whom with the

exception of the chair (who held the position of Professor of Astron-

omy at Utrecht University) were foreign experts from Australia,

Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and the United States.Following the assessment, the review committee produced a detailed

report of just under 100 pages, outlining its methodology, the key

CONTENTS



72


characteristics of the faculties and research programmes being

reviewed, and providing detailed comment on the state of earth

sciences and on the work of each faculty and research programme.The committee assessed scientific quality, scientific productivity,

scientific and societal relevance, and viability on a five-point scale of

excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory and poor. While overall it

reported favourably on the state of earth sciences, it identified a

number of issues of concern, particularly issues about lack of critical

mass in some institutions, workloads of senior staff, and the desir-

ability of increased international mobility amongst students and post-

doctoral fellows. Each research programme was given a descriptive

grade under the four criteria (VSNU 1996). One of the strengths of

the program of research assessments is that apart from constituting

an important quality assurance and accountability device, review

reports provide an overall detailed assessment of the various academic

disciplines and the work in each of these in the various university

faculties. They are also forward-looking reports that can be used

to guide both universities and government agencies in their

forward planning.

CONTENTS



73


5 Accreditation of courses

and institutions

5.1 This chapter considers the mechanisms for the accreditation of courses

and institutions in a Modern Australian Model of quality assurance and

accreditation. It will be recalled that the Model provides for different

arrangements for institutions that have the power to accredit their own

courses and for non self-accrediting institutions. For the first, the main

mechanism would be rigorous scrutiny of financial and quality aspects

before founding legislation is passed or other authorisation is given.For non self-accrediting institutions, the model is less well developed

but it is suggested that the main elements could be as follows:

• Rigorous scrutiny of provider capacity before course

accreditation; and

• Review of provider performance and accredited courses every

five years.

5.2 The term accreditation with respect to this chapter is used to refer to

a process of assessment and review, carried out by a government

agency and with legislative backing, which enables a higher education

course or institution to be recognised or certified as meeting

appropriate standards. It is also a process leading to approval for

higher education institutions to operate within a State or Territory

or for particular courses leading to specified awards to be offered.

As already noted, this process currently is carried out by the States

and Territories.

5.3 With respect to the different categories of higher education institutions

outlined in chapter 3, there is little problem with respect to

institutions that currently have powers of self-accreditation, except

that in highly unusual circumstances it is possible that a State or

Territory Minister could institute an inquiry into a self-accrediting

institution, or even dismiss the governing body. Further, as will be

argued in a later chapter, it is highly desirable that, whatever national

quality assurance mechanism is developed, it should cover private as

well as public universities, and self-accrediting as well as non self-

accrediting institutions.

CONTENTS



74


5.4 Acceptance of the points made in the previous paragraph means the

main concern of any accreditation process would need to be with:

• Approval for new universities to operate, to use the name

university, and to offer degrees and other awards;

• Approval and accreditation of courses of study leading to degrees

and other awards by other higher education providers; and

• Re-accreditation of institutions and awards.

5.5 There are also some related issues about whether there should be any

restrictions on Australian universities operating in other states than

the one in which they were established, about their ability to

develop relationships with private providers in other states and to

develop special courses or campuses for international students in

other states, and about whether higher education providers who offer

courses leading to particular awards of universities should be covered

by accreditation.

5.6 Still another topic that needs consideration is what links there should

be between accreditation and quality assurance in the proposed

model. This will be taken up in later discussion.

Responsibility for accreditation5.7 In our various discussions, we found strong support for the prop-

osition that accreditation in the way defined in this chapter is clearly a

matter for government and not the higher education sector, and that

the States and the Territories should continue to exercise their

responsibilities in this area. This means that States and Territories

would continue to approve the establishment and operation of new

and overseas universities and the approval of courses in non-self

accrediting institutions. Many respondents considered it important that

accreditation should have a legal basis, especially as in the future it ispossible that there will be more challenges considering who should

be able to offer courses leading to degrees and other higher education

awards and what institutions should be able to use the titles of

university and degree. State and Territory accrediting agencies clearly

see accreditation as a function for their level of government and

consider that, over the past decade, despite a number of weaknesses

in criteria and processes, the various States and Territories have done

a worthwhile job at a highly professional level. They point to existing

legislation in place and emphasise the constitutional responsibilities

of the States and Territories for particular aspects of education. Further,

a number of those interviewed made the point that in recent years the

CONTENTS



75


role of the States and Territories has been enhanced as the Common-

wealth has moved from funding to subsidising universities.

5.8 We support the above arguments and note that a number of the States

have well developed offices which have had considerable experience

in accreditation, in some cases going back to the period of advanced

education. Further, in a number of cases the expertise in accreditation

is of a high order and some of the documentation that has been

developed is particularly impressive.

5.9 We found no support at all for any other agency or body to perform

the accreditation role. The AVCC considers that accreditation is a

proper role for government rather than the sector and is concerned

that accreditation should have a proper legislative basis. Professional

bodies show no interest in the area and it should be noted that a

large number of disciplinary and professional areas are not covered by

the accreditation functions performed by bodies such as the Institution

of Engineers.

5.10 Another possibility would be for a new national agency for quality

assurance to take over the current work of the States and Territories

in course and institutional accreditation. We found no support for this

plan and we advise against it. It would raise difficult constitutional

and intergovernmental issues and the accreditation functions couldoverburden any new agency charged with the difficult task of

developing a new national quality assurance agency. Further, through

continuation and extension of the present work being undertaken by

the MCEETYA Multilateral Joint Planning Committee we consider that

it should be possible to develop a professional national approach to

accreditation, being operated by State and Territories working in close

cooperation with one another. On the other hand, if the current work

of the Multilateral Joint Planning Committee is unsuccessful, other

options than may have to be considered.

5.11 In these circumstances we consider that accreditation in terms of the

approval for the operation of new or overseas universities and the

approval of higher education courses offered by non self-accrediting

institutions should remain, at least for the present, a State and

Territory responsibility. At the same time, it we see the need for each

State and Territory to report annually to MCEETYA on any changes in

accreditation legislation, guidelines and procedures, and provide

details on those institutions and courses which have received

accreditation over the past 12 months. We recommend adoption of

such a policy. Appropriate linkages also will need to be developedbetween accreditation and any system of national institutional quality

assurance audits.

CONTENTS



76


Greater uniformity of legislation, criteria

and processes5.12 State and Territory accrediting bodies readily admit that there are

problems in the current arrangements with respect to uniformity in

legislation and other regulatory requirements, and in criteria and

processes employed in accreditation. However quite rightly, they point

to the substantial progress made in the past five years, particularly

in strengthening legislation, in sharing documentation and information

between offices, and in achieving reciprocal agreements that mean

an institution operating nationally or in more than one State/Territory

need only apply once for accreditation. They also point to recent

progress made by the MCEETYA Multilateral Joint Planning Committee.

5.13 The MCEETYA meeting of 22–23 April 1999 dealt with a number of

items related to the recognition of universities. That meeting agreed

to refer the issue of a common approach to criteria and procedures

employed in the accreditation of higher education institutions to the

Multilateral Joint Planning Committee. It asked the Committee to

report on the current criteria and procedures for the accreditation

of higher education institutions in each State and Territory and

make recommendations on the most appropriate instrument for

a common approach.

5.14 The former Higher Education Task Force had commissioned a project

in 1998 to be undertaken in Queensland to explore options to develop

common principles and a cooperative approach to quality assurance of

accreditation processes among relevant State and Territory jurisdictions

with respect to the following areas:

(i) accreditation of higher education courses offered by private (non-

university) providers, and registration of providers to offer

courses; and(ii) accreditation recognition of overseas and/or private universities,

including arrangements, if any, with respect to:

• overseas universities that teach individual Australian distance

education students in Australia, although these may have no

presence in Australia, either through an agent or Australian

branch office;

• overseas universities that seek to operate in a State or

Territory through an agent of by establishing a branch office

or campus; and• local institutions seeking to use the title and operate as

a university in a State or Territory.

CONTENTS




5.15 A draft report on arrangements and procedures for the establishment

and recognition of universities throughout Australia has been prepared

under the Taskforce Consultancy. This is part of a larger report onaccreditation of higher education institutions.

5.16 The 10th meeting of MCEETYA on 22–23 1999 April also formally

endorsed the operational guidelines for use by State and Territory

accreditation officers for concurrent accreditation and authorisation of

private higher education providers to offer higher education courses in

two or more States or Territories of Australia.

5.17 To date the Multilateral Committee has put most of its efforts into

developing a common protocol for the accreditation of universities.

In turn this is raising the issue of what are the distinguishing

characteristics of a university in Australia at close to the turn of the

millennium and that criteria should be used in accrediting new and

overseas universities. Also it is planned to identify the gaps in legis-

lative protection afforded to the Australian university system against

domestic and overseas institutions operating in Australia without

approval of the relevant State or Territory authority.

5.18 With regard to controls over use of the titles of ‘university’ and

‘degree’, there are some differences of opinion. State and Territory

officials see value in maintaining and strengthening controls over

these titles, especially as this is an important element of regulatory

controls over new providers and overseas institutions, and in main-

taining the status and international credibility of current universities.

On the other hand, some key figures within public universities

consider that Australia appears to be moving to an American type

higher education system where the title of university carries less

weight and where some prestigious institutions use the title institute or

college and relatively low level institutions call themselves universities.

5.19 From a pragmatic point of view, it will be unfortunate if theMultilateral Committee is drawn into lengthy and time-consuming

debates about the characteristics of modern Australian universities.

Perhaps more important is the need to develop uniform protocols for

the recognition of new and overseas universities and agreement on

the criteria to be applied. There seems a high degree of agreement

that criteria should include topics such as financial viability, the legal

basis of the institution, and the processes of governance, internal

quality assurance and accountability. But there appears to be less

agreement about whether the criteria should include quantitative

indicators with regard to staff, buildings and facilities, and library

holdings and specialised laboratories. Other issues are whether all

77

CONTENTS



78


universities should have an active involvement in research and

research training and what might be minimum commitment to these

activities for both new institutions and established overseasinstitutions.

5.20 Other issues that need attention include:

• protocols and procedures for the accreditation of institutions other

than universities;

• whether the recognition of new and overseas universities should

automatically carry with it the rights of self-accrediting powers, or

whether some accredited universities might be treated in a similar

fashion to the Melbourne Private University whose courses must

be certified by the University of Melbourne and the accreditation

limited to a period of five years;

• whether or not all institutions need some form of accreditation

before their courses can be accredited;

• requirements with regard to ‘out-state’ Australian institutions

operating in other States and Territories;

• whether or not all accredited institutions need special approval

to offer courses to international students at special international

student campuses;• whether or not universities and other self accrediting institutions

need special approval to enter into franchise arrangements to offer

higher education courses with non accredited institutions such as

VET providers, especially when all teaching and assessment is

carried out by the staff of the franchisee;

• whether or not legislation in all States and Territories should

provide for both the accreditation of institutions and courses;

• the linkages between accreditation of institutions and courses;

• detailed protocols, criteria and procedures for the approvaland accreditation of courses in institutions which do not have

self-accrediting powers.

Many of these issues are quite complex and raise difficult political

issues. On the other hand, already there is available extensive

documentation in the offices of accrediting agencies.

CONTENTS



79


Reporting on accreditation of institutions and courses

5.21 One current weakness is a lack of national information available tomembers of the public, employers and higher education providers

and potential providers about accreditation processes and which

institutions and courses have been accredited and over what periods.

Some accrediting agencies have information and consolidated listings

of accredited institutions and courses readily available but in other

cases this is not so. At a minimum, this information should be widely

available nationally and information should provide legal clarity to

students, providers, employers and professional associations. Further

this information should be available in both print and on-line forms.

It will be noted that we have already recommended that each Stateand Territory should report annually to MCEETYA on any changes

in accreditation legislation, guidelines and procedures and what

institutions and courses have been accredited over the past twelve

months.

5.22 We had discussions with various bodies about how a national listing

might be achieved. Some suggested a small office attached to

MCEETYA or to the AQF Board Secretariat or that the developing and

maintaining a listing might be the responsibility of a new national

quality assurance agency. However, the AQF Board Secretariatsuggested that possibly the most cost-efficient means might be for

each accrediting agency to have available both print and on-line

listings and for the AQF Web page to refer enquiries to the various

State and Territory Web pages. In addition the proposed national

quality assurance might do the same. While this solution would be a

marked improvement over the current situation and would be cost-

effective, the main limitation would be that there would be no single

national listing of all accredited institutions and courses. Further, this

system would depend on the efficiency of each accrediting agency in

keeping its listing up to date.

Other compliance functions for accrediting agencies5.23 An important quality assurance function performed by State and

Territory accrediting agencies is monitoring that all higher education

institutions in their jurisdiction fulfil all statutory obligations with

regard to accountability and providing annual reports to government

agencies. The Victorian Office of Higher Education has a particularly well developed system, whereby all universities are reminded annually

of their various accountability and reporting responsibilities. Each is

CONTENTS



80


provided with a listing of all responsibilities and is required to sign off

on each item as it has been met. This system could well provide a

model for those agencies that do not have such a formal system.

Staffing and resourcing of State and Territory accreditation agencies

5.24 While we recommend that accreditation should remain a State and

Territory function, it will be important that each State and Territory

Government resource their higher education offices at an appropriate

level. As already noted, currently the size and expertise of these

offices vary to a considerable extent and in many cases administrative

weaknesses are a direct result of lack of staffing and other resources.

If State and Territory accrediting agencies are to have an enhanced

role, there should be a clear understanding that adequate resources

will be provided.

Links between accreditation and quality assurance

5.25 An important part of the current accreditation process is thereaccreditation of institutions at regular intervals. Generally the period

of acccreditation is five years. Clearly with any accreditation system it

is necessary to review and re-accredit institutions and courses on a

regular basis. However, with a new national accreditation agency, it

will be necessary to have clear policies about the relation between

reaccreditation and quality assurance reviews. In particular, will a non

self-accrediting institution that subjects itself to quality assurance

reviews be subjected to the same re-accreditation requirements as one

that does not? One solution could be that institutions which have had

a quality assurance review within the past three years may be able toachieve re-accreditation via a less demanding process.

CONTENTS



81


6 Quality assurance and

improvement plans

6.1 This chapter considers the proposed strengthening possible under the

Modern Australian Model of internal quality assurance mechanisms for

self-accrediting institutions. As already noted the Modern Australian

Model proposes putting considerable weight on the development and

annual publication of Quality Assurance and Improvement Plans for

the forthcoming triennium. These plans would outline the institution’s

goals, strategies for achieving those goals and the indicators used tomonitor progress in achieving the goals. The plans would also provide

an analysis of the institution’s performance, commenting on such data

as the outcomes of the graduate satisfaction survey (CEQ) and

graduate employment outcomes (the GDS) over time and compared

with appropriate benchmarks. The plans would also need to clearly

outline the processes in place to assure quality of provision within its

total ‘catchment area’.

6.2 This chapter comments on this proposal. It also discusses who should

require institutions to submit the plans and who should publish theseand the need for some integration with the proposed quality assur-

ance audits. It also comments on whether or not the proposal for

quality assurance and improvement plans might cover other than self-

accrediting institutions, and Commonwealth funded institutions as well

as those institutions not funded by the Commonwealth.

Comments on suggested model6.3 Continuation and strengthening of the current requirements of the

Commonwealth with regard to institutional quality assurance and

improvement plans appears to be a well-conceived and sensible

strategy. Good management practice requires that all institutions

should have in place appropriate quality assurance and improvement

plans and submission of these to some outside body provides useful

discipline for institutions to keep such plans up to date. With data

available from the CEQ and GDS, it appears sensible that institutions

should provide comments on these data for their own institutions,

especially in relation to trends over time and make comparisons withappropriate benchmark data. The suggested requirement that

institutional quality plans should cover all major aspects of operations

CONTENTS



82


including ‘off-shore’ and distance education internationally, would

constitute an important addition to current guidelines. However,

‘catchment area’ may not be the best term to use with regard to thismatter as it already carries with it specific meanings with regard to the

home address of students and those areas from which institutions

generally draw their students.

6.4 While some universities have made major advances in benchmarking,

particularly in relation to other members of established networks or

individual institutions with similar characteristics, our impression is that

this development has not been uniform across the sector and that it

may be helpful to provide additional assistance. Such assistance could

take the form of special projects funded by the Commonwealth that would lead to experience and good practice being shared. In addition

there are various technical issues about aspects of benchmarking that

require additional consideration.

6.5 With regard to ‘off-shore’ international education, whether it is in the

form of separate campuses established by an Australian university,

twinning or franchising arrangements, or offering distance education

internationally, it is particularly important that institutions should

document in some detail their monitoring and quality assurance

procedures. In an early chapter it was noted that in 1998 almost23 000 students were enrolled under ‘off-shore’ arrangements and that

this form of enrolment seems highly likely to increase substantially.

Further, ‘off-shore’ international education poses particularly difficult

problems of management and monitoring, while unfortunate incidents

related to such operations could have a particularly serious impact on

Australia’s international education effort, especially across the countries

of the Asia and Pacific region.

6.6 A number of major Australian international education providers

already have in place special review and external monitoringarrangements for ‘off-shore’ arrangements. Such developments are

highly desirable and it would be useful for the Commonwealth to

fund a project which might address some of the special problems in

quality assurance for ‘off-shore’ operations and help to circulate ideas

of good practice.

6.7 Publication of Quality Assurance and Improvement Plans provides

incentive for institutions to take the development of plans and

monitoring of performance seriously. It also provides a useful

mechanism for dissemination of good practice and innovation.Since the first publication of plans has not yet occurred it is difficult

to know how publication will actually work in practice and what its

CONTENTS



83


effects will be. However, it should be noted that publication of instit-

utional reports from the second and third rounds of the 1993–1995

quality assurance program was found to be useful in many institutions.One important consideration will be the length and format of plans.

While publication of plans may mean imposition of a tight word limit,

this could work to reduce some of the value of institutions having

detailed and comprehensive plans. Further, if the review of quality

assurance and improvement plans was built into a new audit process

this could well lessen the need for annual publication of plans.

Who should require and publish plans and links with institutional audits?

6.8 Currently DETYA requires institutions that it funds to prepare quality

assurance and improvement plans as part of the annual profile

exercise. Senior officials at State and Territory level and senior

managers in the higher education sector expressed no problem with

this arrangement, pointing out that any government agency that

provides funding has every right to impose conditions on funding,

particularly ones related to accountability. Further, it is widely

acknowledged that such plans help promote good practice.

6.9 There are however two fairly minor problems with this arrangement

that deserve some consideration. The first is that with the estab-

lishment of a new national quality assurance agency it would

be desirable for there to be on-going discussions between DETYA

and the quality assurance agency about what DETYA requires of the

institutions it funds and what the quality assurance agency will require

in terms of documentation and self-studies prior to the visit of a

review or audit committee or team. Ideally what DETYA requires

of institutions in terms of plans should be identical, or at least notin conflict with, required documentation for quality audits.

6.10 Second, since the requirements concerning preparation and

submissions of plans applies only to those institutions funded by

DETYA, there is the question of whether it would be desirable for

some requirement of this kind to be placed on non-DETYA funded

institutions, including the two private universities, other self-

accrediting institutions and private providers. This raises difficult issues

about constitutional and legal responsibilities, but possibly the States

and Territories might consider placing some requirements aboutannual quality assurance plans on other than Commonwealth funded

institutions, or the new quality assurance agency could require all

CONTENTS



84


institutions to submit plans as part of the documentation submitted as

the first stage of institutional audits.

6.11 Associated with the need for on-going discussions between DETYA

and the new quality assurance agency, it would also be desirable

to have on-going discussions by DETYA and the new quality

assurance agency concerning what requirements concerning the

submissions of quality assurance and improvement plans and other

documentation that professional associations put on institutions and

faculties as part of accreditation and re-accreditation visits. While it

may be difficult to achieve a fully integrated approach, at least it

would be helpful if the key parties were able to exchange

documentation on an on-going basis.

CONTENTS



85


7 Quality audits and a

new quality agency

7.1 The final chapter considers the proposal for a new national system

of quality audits and the establishment of a new agency of some kind

to take responsibility of these audits. It will be recalled the proposal

for the Modern Australian Model is to have separate arrangements for

self-accrediting and non self-accrediting institutions. For self-accrediting

institutions, there will be a quality audit every five years and the

actual audit will be proceeded by a self-study. However, nonself-accrediting providers will not be subject to such audits but

will be subject to reviews of performance every five years as part

of a re-accreditation process.

7.2 The task for our project was to: develop the Modern Australian Model

as an alternative to the other four models; advise under whose

authority it should be run; advise whether the framework would need

a legislative base; assess whether it would be sensible and appropriate

to make use of the AQF; elaborate the possible nature of the five

yearly self-assessments for self-accrediting institutions; comment onthe desirability of focussing more than in the past on outcomes and

standards as well as processes; consider how to achieve rigour and

independence for the process while retaining the cooperation and

confidence of universities; and advise on the role of professional

associations within the model and the nature of the audit of the

courses of non self-accrediting providers.

7.3 More specifically, we were asked to make a comprehensive assessment

of the Modern Australian Model against the following criteria:

• Credibility (how well the model would be credible with

international and domestic interest groups and potential customers,

and the marketability of the arrangements);

• Effectiveness (ability to address learning outcome standards as well

as quality assurance processes);

• Ability to provide legal clarity for students and providers;

• Ability to promote and enhance improvement and good practice;

• How well the model could build on the key features of the

Australian higher education system, where universities areestablished under State/Territory/Commonwealth legislation

CONTENTS



86


as autonomous institutions with the power to accredit their

own courses, and where higher education courses developed and

delivered by other providers are accredited by State/Territory bodies;• How well the model could exploit the role of professional


• Minimum prescription and bureaucracy; and

• Cost.

Characteristics of and criteria for the new mechanism

7.4 DETYA documentation specifies the following criteria for a new national quality assurance mechanism for self-accrediting institutions:

• The mechanism should not be solely at the discretion of the

institutions themselves;

• There needs to be some external review or audit of the claims

made by institutions about quality and standards;

• The mechanism should be credible with international and domestic

interest groups, and should and be able to protect the international

reputation of Australian awards;

• The mechanism should help satisfy Australian taxpayers of valuefor money;

• Any audit mechanism should have rigour, but at the same time

be cost effective, not unnecessarily intrusive and be able to retain

the cooperation of the public universities; and

• The mechanism should provide legal clarity for students

and providers and able to promote good practice and

facilitate improvement.

7.5 As already indicated, we support these principles. To have both

domestic and international credibility, the mechanism should not be

under the direct control of higher education institutions. At the same

time, we consider that to ensure success and acceptance the mech-

anism should be regarded as a cooperative enterprise between

government and the higher education sector. We strongly support the

idea of an external audit whose function will be to test the claims

made by institutions about quality and standards. This should be

combined with an institutional self-study which would take place prior

to the visit of a review panel. An alternative would be to opt for the

Dutch model of disciplinary reviews, but for a number of reasons theinstitutional audit would appear to be more suitable. The institutional

audit is likely to be cheaper and more cost efficient. It is more

CONTENTS



87


commonly used internationally than the disciplinary review mech-

anism and it is better able to cater for a diverse sector with self

accrediting and non-self accrediting institutions and both public andprivate providers. Further, the Dutch model is particularly effective if

the main focus is on research and the state of the disciplines and their

future directions. Since the idea of institutional quality assurance audits

or reviews is well understood both in Australia and internationally, we

consider that, with appropriate structures and resources, and with the

support of both government (including the States and Territories) and

the sector, an audit mechanism should soon gain strong credibility with

international and domestic interest groups, and should be able to

protect the international reputation of Australian awards. The mech-

anism should also help satisfy Australian taxpayers of value for money.

Generally institutional audit mechanisms prove to be cost effective and

not necessarily intrusive and have been able to retain the cooperation

of universities. In both Britain and New Zealand universities have been

supportive of the mechanism. An audit mechanism should help to

provide legal clarity for students and providers, although as we

comment elsewhere we see important legal clarity and protection

coming from the new accreditation arrangements.

7.6 Further still, while our interview schedule was limited because of time

constraints, we formed the view that a non-intrusive and sensibly

conceived quality assurance mechanism which involved both the

higher education sector and the State and Territories would be likely

to attract considerable support. Certainly both with the sector and with

State and Territory accrediting agencies there is wide appreciation of

some of the strong influences that require establishment of a new

national mechanism.

7.7 Apart from the criteria mentioned above, we suggest that other broad

principles should guide the establishment and operation of a new

quality assurance mechanism. These include the following:

Cooperative Commonwealth/State/Territory andhigher education effort 7.8 We consider it important that the proposed new quality assurance

arrangements should be a cooperative Commonwealth/State/Territory

and higher education sector effort, rather than a Commonwealth

initiative. Not surprisingly, officials in State and Territory accrediting

agencies spoke strongly that the new mechanism should not besimply a Commonwealth creation, arguing on the basis of the

CONTENTS



88


constitutional responsibilities of the States in education, that overall

accountability lay with the States and Territories, Commonwealth

officials did not understand fully many of the key issues andthat any new arrangements should accommodate the current legal

and legislative responsibilities of State and Territory agencies.

For somewhat different reasons, we feel confident that the idea

of a cooperative effort would attract much greater support from

the AVCC as opposed to the idea of the initiative led and controlled

by the Commonwealth.

Small and cost efficient agency, with minimum bureaucracy 7.9 We found strong support for the idea that, should a new national

quality assurance agency be established, it should be relatively small

and cost efficient, it should be independent of DETYA, State and

Territory Accrediting Agencies, and it should have a minimum of

bureaucracy. The size and activities of a new agency should resemble

that of the New Zealand Academic Audit Unit of the former British

Academic Audit Unit and Higher Education Quality Council. We found

no support for the idea that a new agency should be part of or have

some link with the AQF.

Focus on processes rather than outputs7.10 One of the most difficult questions facing the establishment of a new

quality assurance mechanism is whether the main focus should be on

processes rather than on outputs and standards. We recognise that

there is wide community and international interest in the issue of

academic standards generally and particularly in standard between

degrees offered by different Australian universities. There is also

considerable interest in how Australian degrees compare with those

offered by universities in other industrialised countries, particularly

those that compete with Australian providers in international

education. There are also domestic accountability pressures working

to direct more attention to standards and outputs. On the other hand,

to put an emphasis on standards is fraught with danger and difficulty.

Many universities will be far less comfortable with an emphasis on

outputs and standards and will recall the controversy that attracted

the ranking or ‘banding’ of institutions with the 1993–1995 quality

assurance program. Many newer and smaller universities consider

that the rankings and performance funding seriously damaged theirreputations and are likely to be cynical about any audit program

which would most likely give the oldest and research intensive

CONTENTS



89


universities the strongest rankings. Any serious attempt at focussing

on outputs and academic standards is likely to raise difficult method-

ological issues and be controversial. The recent experiences of theBritish Quality Assurance Agency point to how proposals to assess

standards are likely to be highly controversial and to be regarded

especially by major universities as being highly intrusive. We assume

also that special technical staff would be required or the proposed

agency would need to make use of the services of consultants with

special expertise in educational measurement and judging the

equivalence of academic standards.

7.11 Three further arguments need to be mentioned against an emphasis

on outputs and standards. First, by placing the primary focus of auditson planning, management and monitoring processes within instit-

utions, it is still possible for panels to collect considerable information

on outputs and standards. Further, the issue of outputs and standards

is probably best addressed in the context of reviewing institutional

quality assurance and improvement plans in the light of institutional

missions, how institutions monitor and make judgements about their

performance, and what evidence they have to substantiate the judge-

ments they make. Hence the focus is not on making judgements

about institutional performance but how effectively and professionally

institutions monitor their own performance and use the information

gained for institutional planning and improvement.

7.12 Second, we suspect that assessments of outputs and standards are

unnecessary in terms of credibility, both in Australia and overseas.

Quite simply, most enquirers wish to know whether or not there is

a national agency for quality assurance and what programs of reviews

it has undertaken

7.13 Third, issues about outputs and standards can be addressed in simpler

and more cost-effective ways. One possibility would for a new agency to have a small budget for investigations and evaluations and to

commission studies that could address particular issues about

standards. Possibly one or more of the professional associations

involved in course accreditation might be interested in comparative

studies of course requirements, desirable graduate attributes and

assessment methods for particular disciplines.

CONTENTS



90


Voluntary participation by higher education providers7.14 We favour the principle of voluntary participation in any new quality

assurance program. Such an approach is likely to be much more

acceptable to the sector and likely to achieve a much higher degree

of support. It will be recalled that participation in the 1993–1995

quality assurance program was voluntary yet, despite some threats

of withdrawal, all universities participated in each of the three rounds.

We favour an arrangement whereby all higher education institutions

would be eligible for membership and with all members paying an

annual subscription fee that could be based on student load. At the

same time, review procedures would need to be sufficiently flexible

to cater for institutions of differing size.

Name for new agency likely to attract support and credibility 7.15 The actual name of the new agency could be important in gaining

support from the higher education sector and credibility both in

Australia and internationally. We favour use of the words ‘quality

assurance’ in the title, since this term has become well understood and

has been used recently in both the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The words ‘authority’ or ‘agency’ seem suitable for a relatively small

agency, but their use could lead to confusion with the British and

New Zealand bodies. For this reason the words council or board might

be more appropriate. Ideally the title of the organisation should be, as

short as possible, but to assist with international education it could be

thought useful to include the word ‘Australian’.

Mechanisms to commission studies about standardsand good practice

7.16 If an new agency is to play an important role in dissemination of goodpractice and addressing questions about standards, this should be

made clear in the brief and there should be some understanding

at the outset about the means by which such aims could be achieved.

As already mentioned, one cost efficient means would be the use of

limited funds to commission studies, publish reports, and sponsor

conferences and seminars.

CONTENTS



92


member drawn from one of the major professional associations or

from the Australian Council of the Professions. Such representation

should be of a person with special expertise and major involvement inaccreditation. In addition, the governing body should have the power

to add one or two additional members with special expertise in the

areas of academic audits and assessment.

Preferred model7.21 Our preferred model for the new quality assurance mechanism

and agency is as follows:

• A new quality assurance mechanism should be established as a joint

Commonwealth, State/Territory, and higher education initiative with

the aim of strengthening public accountability, protecting academic

standards and the reputation of Australian higher education

providers and awards, and promoting good practice in quality

assurance. We suggest that the new mechanism should be called

the Higher Education Quality Assurance Council.

• The central function of the Council will be conduct of program

of institutional reviews or audits. Review teams will carry out site

visits, following completion of self-assessments carried out by

institutions, which will include reviews of the processes of

managing quality including monitoring performance and

benchmarking. Institutions will provide review teams with a report

of their self-assessments, together with documentation on

institutional mission and objectives, quality assurance and

improvement plans, details on methods used to monitor and

benchmark achievements and the results of monitoring and

benchmarking. Participating institutions will be reviewed every

five years.• The Council will be established an independent agency, at ‘arms

length’ from both government (Commonwealth and State) and

from the higher education sector. It will be governed by a board

consisting of an independent Chair, two Commonwealth nominees,

two members representing the States and Territories, two represen-

tatives of the higher education sector and one representative drawn

from those professional associations involved in accreditation within

the higher education sector. The Executive Director will be an ex-

officio member and the board will have the power to coopt up to

two additional members with special expertise in academic audits

and assessment. Commonwealth representatives will be appointed

CONTENTS



93


by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, while the

two State and Territory representatives will be appointed by

MCEETYA. Members will serve four year terms.• Funding for the work of the Council will come from annual grants

from the Commonwealth and from the States and Territories, and

annual membership fees paid by individual higher education

institutions who wish to participate in the program of reviews.

• The terms of reference of the Council will be as follows:

– to review within participating higher education institutions the

mechanisms for quality assurance, monitoring performance and

academic standards, and enhancing quality;

– to publish the reports of reviews;

– to report publicly from time to time on the effectiveness of

quality assurance procedures in participating institutions, the

extent to which procedures ensure academic standards and

reflect good practice in maintaining and improving quality,

and other relevant matters;

– to identify and disseminate good practice in quality assurance

in higher education;

– to undertake and sponsor studies related to effective quality

assurance management practices and academic standards inhigher education.

• In carrying out reviews, review teams appointed by the Council will

focus particularly on:

– appropriateness of quality assurance and improvement plans in

relation to institutional contexts and missions;

– rigour of the mechanisms employed to review courses and

academic organisational units, and monitor performance against

institutional plans;

– effectiveness in monitoring outcomes and in benchmarking, both

nationally and internationally; and

– success in communicating the results of the monitoring outcomes

and academic standards to stakeholders.

CONTENTS



94


Review teams will report to the Council.

• Each year the Council will draw up a program of reviews forthe following year, after consultation with institutions likely

to be reviewed.

• Review panels, generally of no more than five members, will be

appointed by the Council. Members of review teams will be drawn

from the higher education sector, the Commonwealth and the

States. Members may also be drawn from the professions and

professional associations, and from business and industry. Review

panels will normally visit institutions for two consecutive days after

the institution has completed a self-assessment and supplied other

documentation as required. Institutions offering courses ‘off-shore’

for international students should document in detail the procedures

followed for safeguarding and monitoring quality, and the results of

any assessments.

• Following the visit of the review team, the draft report will be

forwarded to the institution for comment. Once the report is

completed it will be considered by the Council and then published.

Copies will be provided free to DETYA, State and Territory

accrediting agencies, all participating higher education institutions,

and relevant professional associations. For each review, a singlereport will be prepared and published.

• Should a review reveal serious weaknesses, the institution

concerned will be given up to 12 months to correct weaknesses

prior to a supplementary review. Failure to rectify weaknesses

would be a matter for DETYA to address (in the case of

Commonwealth funded institutions) or for the relevant State or

Territory accrediting agency. One possible action would be to

remove the name of the institution from the AQF list of accredited

institutions until such time that as minimum standards are achieved.

• Every effort should be made to encourage private universities and

non self-accrediting institutions to participate in the review program.

• Prior to arrangements for the Council being finalised, the higher

education sector should be consulted about the proposed terms of

reference for the Council, the composition of the Council’s board

and the method of conducting reviews.

CONTENTS



95


Appendix A

Project brief

A Modern Australian ModelThis model, which builds on the current or recent practice, would

embrace two related functions - accreditation and quality assurance.

It would have two distinct branches:

(a) For institutions which are given power to accredit their

own courses

The main requirements for these institutions would be:

– Rigorous scrutiny of financial and quality aspects before

founding legislation is passed or other authorisation is given.

– The annual publication of Quality Assurance and Improvement

Plans for the forthcoming triennium. These plans would

outline the institution’s goals, strategies for achieving those

goals and the indicators used to monitor progress in achievingthose goals. An analysis of performance, including a consid-

eration of the outcomes of graduate satisfaction surveys (the

CEQ) and graduate employment outcomes (the GDS) over

time (say, the previous five years) and compared with approp-

riate benchmarks, would form an integral part of these plans.

The plans would need to outline very clearly the processes in

place to assure quality of provision within its ‘catchment area’

—thus, if an institution operates offshore, whether physically

or virtually, it would need to outline what mechanisms it has

in place to assure quality in relation to that provision.

– A detailed self-assessment, which would include benchmarking

of standards, to be conducted every five years. This assessment

would be audited on a whole-of-institution basis. The audit

team could be made up of Government officials and/or

members of independent bodies, such as the Council of the

Learned Academies. Should the audit reveal serious areas of

weakness, the institution would be given 12 months to address

such matters. Failure to rectify serious deficiencies would result

in the Government removal of the institution from the AQF listof accredited institutions.

CONTENTS



96


– Compliance with any additional measures which may be

necessary to ensure the maintenance of acceptable high

standards of degrees, in the environment described in theBackground of this brief.

(b) For non self-accrediting providers

Work is currently underway to develop a common approach to

regulating the entry of private providers of higher education

courses. The main features of such an approach might be:

– Rigorous scrutiny of provider capability before course

accreditation; and

– Review of provider performance and accredited courses every

five years.

Issues

Numerous issues need to be addressed in a consideration of a possible

model for Australia. These include:

• Under whose authority the quality assurance and accreditation

system would be run. There are two obvious options - the

Commonwealth alone or the Ministerial Committee for Education,

Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. The case for the Common- wealth alone assuring itself of provider quality rests on the avail-

ability of Commonwealth-funded subsidies.

• Whether the framework would need a legislative base or whether

it could be set up as an instrument of government policy (as is the

case with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)).

• Whether it is sensible and appropriate to make use of the AQF.

On the one hand, it has high public visibility; on the other, there

may be resistance to building on something which has had a major

vocational education and training focus. It may be prudent to usethe AQF simply as a vehicle for listing accredited higher education

institutions—giving such institutions an official imprimatur.

• The nature of the five-yearly self-assessment for self-accrediting

institutions.

• The desirability of focussing (more than in the past) on outcomes

and standards as well as processes.

• How to achieve rigour and independence for the process while

retaining the cooperation and confidence of the universities.

• The role of professional associations within the model, and

implications of accreditation by them.

CONTENTS



97


• The nature of the audit of the courses of non self-accrediting

providers. The extent to which audits would focus on courses

rather than providers. The role and status of the audit teams needto be addressed.

The Task The task is to develop Model 5 as an alternative to models 1–4,

mindful of the issues listed above, and make a comprehensive

assessment of this model against the following criteria:

• credibility. This involves assessing how well the model would

be credible with international and domestic interest groups andpotential customers, and the ‘marketability’ of the arrangements;

• effectiveness, ability to address learning outcome standards as well

as quality assurance processes;

• ability to provide legal clarity for students and providers;

• ability to promote and enhance improvement and good practice;

• how well the model could build on the key features of the Australian

higher education system, where universities are established under

State/Territory/Commonwealth legislation as autonomous institutions

with the power to accredit their own courses, and where highereducation courses developed and delivered by other providers are

accredited by State/Territory bodies;

• how well the model could exploit the role of professional


• minimum prescription and bureaucracy; and

• cost.

ConsultationsConsultation with key stakeholders (e.g. the AVCC, State accrediting

bodies, NOOSR, professional associations) should be undertaken

as appropriate.

CONTENTS



99


Appendix B

List of interviews

CanberraMr Michael Gallagher

First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

Dr Tom Karmel

Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Operations Branch


Ms Rebecca Cross

Chief Executive Officer, Australian Education International


Mr Tom Calma

Counsellor (Education & Training) Australian Education International

Australian Embassy

Hanoi, Vietnam

Mr Giancarlo Savaris

Assistant Secretary, NOOSR


Ms Margaret Bell

NOOSR


Mr Stuart Hamilton

Executive Director

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee

Mr P Rodley

Administrative Officer

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee

CONTENTS



100


Ms Ann Ryle

Associate Director, Education and Membership

The Institution of Engineers, Australia

Professor Peter Parr

Consultant

The Institution of Engineers, Australia

Ms Minou Lamb

Office of Training and Adult Education

ACT Department of Education and Training

Sydney Ms Lyndsay Connors

Director, Higher Education Office

NSW Department of Education and Training

Mr Graham Wood

Principal Policy Officer, Higher Education

Office of Higher Education


Mr John WilliamsOffice of Higher Education


MelbourneDr Ian Allen

Deputy Secretary

Victorian Department of Education

Mr Tim Smith Assistant Secretary

Higher Education Branch

Victorian Department of Education

Ms Wendy Katz

Manager, National Recognition Policy

Australian National Training Authority

CONTENTS



101


Dr Judy Forsyth

Executive Officer

Australian Qualifications Framework Advisory Board Secretariat

Dr Grant McBurnie

Director, Transnational Quality Assurance Programs

Monash University

Mr John McPartland

Assistant General Manager

Monash International

Professor Allan Lindsay

Deputy Vice-Chancellor AcademicMonash University

Ms Noreen Cruse

Acting Director, Quality Assurance

Planning and Quality Unit

RMIT

Associate Professor Craig McInnis

Director Centre of the Study of Higher Education

University of Melbourne

BrisbaneMs Leigh Tabrett

Director, Higher Education Office

Queensland Department of Education

Ms Sian Lew

Senior Policy Officer, Higher Education

Queensland Department of Education

Mr Steve McDonald

Director, Industry and Training Framework Team

Australian National Training Authority

Armidale

Professor Brian Stoddart

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and External)

University of New England

CONTENTS



103


References

Australian National Training Authority (1998) Updated Guidelines for Training

Package Developers , Brisbane.

Australian National Training Authority (1998) Australian Recognition

Framework Arrangements , Brisbane

Anwyl, John (1992) Quality in Higher Education: Proceedings of the National

Invitational Workshop held at the University of Melbourne , Centre for

the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Arcelo, Adriano (1992) ‘Governance and Management Issues in Philippine

Higher Education’, paper presented at World Bank Seminar, Singapore.

Asking, Berit and Bauer, Mairanne (1997) ‘The Role, Functions, and the

Impact of a National Agency in the Evaluation of a Decentralised

Higher Education System’, paper presented at CHER conference,

Alicante.

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (1989) ‘AVCC Guidelines on the

Criteria for a University’, Canberra.

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (1997) ‘Guidelines on the Criteria for a

University Recognised by the AVCC’, Canberra.

Ayarza, Herman (1994) ‘Latin America’ in Alma Craft (ed), International

Developments in assuring Quality in Higher Education, Falmer,

Brighton, pp 18–27.

Ball, C (1985) Fitness for Purpose , SRHE and NFER-Nelson, Guilford.

Ballarat University College Proposal for Recognition as a University: Report of

Review Panel (1993), Melbourne.

Bauer, Marianne and Franke-Wikberg, Sigbrit (1993), ‘Quality Assurance in

Swedish Higher Education’, paper presented at the First Biennial

Conference and General Conference of the International Network of

Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, Montreal.

Beyond the Boundaries: Education and Training for the Engineering

Workforce: A study into the Education of and Training of Engineering

Technologists and Engineering Associates (1998), The Institution of

Engineers, Australia, Canberra.

CONTENTS



104


Birnbaum, Robert (1994) ‘The Quality Cube: How College Presidents Assess

Excellence’, Journal of Higher Education Management, Vol 9, No 3,

pp 71–82.

Boffo, Stefano and Moscati, Roberto (1997) ‘Evaluation of the Italian Higher

Education System: Many tribes, many territories, ... and many

godfathers’, paper presented at CHER conference, Alicante.

Brennan, John, de Vries, Peter, and Williams, Ruth (Eds.) (1997) Standards

and Quality in Higher Education, Jessica Kingsley, London.

Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future, Review Report

(1996) The Institution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra.

Cooney, Robert P and Paqueo-Arrezo, Eliza (1993) ‘Higher Education

Regulation in the Philippines: Issues of Control, Quality Assurance and

Accreditation’, Higher Education Policy, Vol 6, No 2, pp 25–28.

Council of Europe (1997) Convention on the recognition of qualifications

concerning Higher Education in the European Region, Lisbon.

Craft, A (Ed.) (1992) Quality Assurance in Higher Education,

(London, Falmer).

Craft, A (Ed.) (1994) International Developments in Assuring Quality in Higher Education, Falmer, London.

Crow, Stephen (1994) ‘Changing Emphases in the USA’ in Alma Craft (Ed.)

International Developments in Assuring Quality in Higher Education,

Falmer, London, pp 118–123.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1999) ‘Project Brief:

Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education’, Canberra.

Dill, D (1997) ‘Accreditation, Assessment and Anarchy? The Evolution of

Academic Quality Assurance Policies in the United States’ in JohnBrennan, Peter de Vries, and Ruth Williams, (Eds.), Standards and

Quality in Higher Education , Jessica Kingsley, London.

Education Queensland, Office of Higher Education (1997) ‘Procedures and

Criteria for the Accreditation of Higher Education Courses offered by

Non-University Providers’, Brisbane.

El-Khawas, Elaine (1993) ‘Accreditation and Evaluation: Reciprocity and

Exchange’, paper presented at EC Conference on the Frameworks for

European Quality Assessment in Higher Education, Copenhagen.

CONTENTS



105


El-Khawas, Elaine (1997) ‘Strong State Action but Limited Results: Perspectives

on University Performance’, revised version of paper presented at

CHER Conference, Alicante.

Frazer, Malcolm (1991) ‘Quality Assurance in Higher Education’, Council for

Academic Awards, London.

Harman, Grant (1994) ‘Australian Higher Education Administration and the

Quality Assurance Movement’, Journal of Higher Education

Management, Volume 9, Number 2, pp 25–45. (Also published in

Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, Volume 16, Number 1,

pp. 25–43).

Harman, Grant (1996a) Quality Assurance for Higher Education: Developing and Managing Quality Assurance for Higher Education Systems and

Institutions in the Asia and the Pacific, Asia-Pacific Centre of

Educational Innovation for Development, Unesco Principal Regional

Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 105+ix.

Harman, Grant (1996b) ‘Quality Assessment with National Institutional

Rankings and Performance Funding: The Australian Experiment,

1993–1995’, Higher Education Quarterly , Vol 50, No 4, pp 295–311.

Harman, Grant (1998) ‘The Management of Quality Assurance: An

International Review of International Practice’, Higher Education

Quarterly , Vol 52, No 4, pp 345–364.

Harman, Grant (1999) ‘Allocating Block Research Grants in Comprehensive

University Systems: A Comparison of the British Research Assessment

Exercise and the Australian Composite Index and Research Quantum’,

Paper presented at the CHER Conference, Oslo, September.

Higher Education Funding Council of England, Scottish Higher Education

Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council of Wales, and

Department of Education of Northern Ireland (1995) ‘Research Assessment Exercise: Criteria for Assessment’. Bristol.

Higher Education Funding Council of England, Scottish Higher Education

Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council of Wales, and

Department of Education of Northern Ireland (1995), ‘Research

Assessment Exercise: Guidance for Submissions’. Bristol.

Kells, H R (1992) Self-Regulation in Higher Education: A Multinational

Perspective on Collaborative Systems of Quality Assurance and Control ,

Jessica Kingsley, London.

CONTENTS



106


Kells, H R and van Vught, F A (Eds.) (1988) Self-Regulation, Self-Study and

Program Review in Higher Education, Lemma, Utrecht.

Lee, Wha-kuk (1993) ‘Issues in the Development of University Accreditation in

Korea’, paper presented at the First Biennial Conference and General

Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance

Agencies in Higher Education, Montreal.

Lindsay, A W (1992) ‘Concepts of Quality in Higher Education’, Journal of

Tertiary Education Administration , Vol. 14, No 2, pp 153–163.

Lindsay, A W (1994) ‘Quality and Management in Universities’, Journal of

Higher Education Management , Vol 9, No 3, pp 57–70.

Liuhanen, Anna-Maija (1997) ‘Internal Quality Assurance in Finnish

Universities,’ paper presented at CHER conference, Alicante.

Malcom, Wilf (1993) ‘The Development of an Academic Audit Unit in New

Zealand’, paper presented to the First Biennial Conference and

General Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance


McNay, Ian (1997) The Impact of the 1992 RAE on Institutional and Individual

Behaviour in English Higher Education: the Evidence from a Research

Report , Centre for Higher Education Management, Anglia PolytechnicUniversity, Chelmsford.

Middlehurst, Robin (1992) ‘Quality: An Organising Principle for Higher

Education’, Higher Education Quarterly , Vol. 46, No 1, pp 20–38.

Neave, G (1991) Models of Quality Assurance in Europe , CNAA, London.

Neave, G (1997) ‘The Rise of the Evaluative State: The State of the Art’, paper

presented at CHER Conference, Alicante.

Policy on Accreditation of Professional Engineering Courses (1999) TheInstitution of Engineers, Australia, Canberra.

Report of the Panel to Review the Submission by Melbourne University Private

for Approval to Operate as a University (1998) Melbourne.

Rajavaara (1998) Professionals and Quality Initiatives in Health and Social

Services in Developing Quality in Personal Social Services , Ashgate

Publishing, Vienna.

Sizer, J (1990) ‘Funding Councils and Performance Indicators in Quality

Assessment in the United Kingdom’ in L C J Goedegeburre, P A MMaasen and De F Westenheijden (Eds) Peer Review and Performance

Indicators , Lemma, Utrecht.

CONTENTS



107


Smith, Tim (1998) ‘Higher Education Private Providers: The New Ball Game’,

paper presented at 22nd ATEM Conference, Darwin.

Strydom, A H (1997) ‘A Cross-National and National Analysis of Policy

Proposals for a Quality Assurance (Evalution) System for Higher

Education in South Africa based on a “Cooperative Governance”

Framework’, paper presented at CHER conference, Alicante,

September.

Su, Jin-Li (1993) ‘Specialized Accreditation in Taiwan: Issues and Perspectives’,

paper presented at the First Biennial Conference and General

Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance


Thune, Christian (1994) ‘Setting up the Danish Centre’ in Alma Craft (Ed.)

International Developments in Assuring Quality in Higher Education

Falmer, London, pp 67–72.

Thune, Christian (1997) ‘’The Balance Between Accountability and

Improvement: The Danish Experience’ in John Brennan, Peter de

Vries, and Ruth Williams, (Eds), Standards and Quality in Higher

Education, Jessica Kingsley, London.

Tsim, T L (1993) ‘The Universities of Hong Kong’ in Commonwealth

Universities Yearbook 1993, The Association of Commonwealth

Universities, London, pp 957–960.

van Vught, F A and Westerheijden, D F (1992) Quality Management and

Quality Assurance in European Higher Education: Methods and

Mechanisms , Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of

Twente, Enschede.

van Vught, Frans A (1994a), ‘Western Europe and North America’ in Alma

Craft (ed.) International Developments in Assuring Quality in Higher

Education, Falmer, London, pp 3–17.

van Vught, Frans A (1994b) ‘Autonomy and Accountability in

Government/University Relationships’ in Jamil Salmi and Adriaan

Verspoor (eds), Revitalizing Higher Education, International

Association of Universities and Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 322–362.

VSNU (1996) Quality Assessment of Research: Earth Sciences in the

Netherlands , Utrecht.

VSNU (1998) Assessment of Research Quality: Protocol 1998 , Utrecht.

Williams, P R (1991) The CVCP Academic Audit Unit , Birmingham.

CONTENTS




Williams, Ruth (1997) ‘Quality and Diversity: The Case of England’ in John

Brennan, Peter de Vries, and Ruth Williams, (Eds), Standards and

Quality in Higher Education , Jessica Kingsley, London.

Woodhouse, David (1997) ‘Qualifications and Quality in New Zealand’ in John

Brennan, Peter de Vries, and Ruth Williams, (Eds), Standards and

Quality in Higher Education , Jessica Kingsley London.

Zijderveld, Diederick C (1997) ‘External Quality Assessment in Dutch Higher

Education: Consultancy and Watchdog Roles’, Higher Education

Management, Vol 9, No 1, pp 31–41.

CONTENTS

Harman_Repositioning QAs and Accreditation in Australian HE.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Harman_Repositioning QAs and Accreditation in Australian HE.pdf