MCEETYA's National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes: Part 2 & protocol 2

Background

2.1
At the time of endorsement of the Protocols only three States had specific arrangements relating to the operation of overseas higher education institutions in Australia, and the approach was different in each case. However, in all cases the accreditation status of an overseas provider in the country of origin had to be established, and the accrediting authority concerned had to be a recognised authority. The level of oversight of local delivery arrangements, and of actual courses, varied.

2.2
In the case of overseas providers, the community has an interest in being assured of:

1. the standing of the provider in its own system;
2. the comparability of qualifications and learning outcomes with those offered in Australia;
3. the adequacy of delivery arrangements, including arrangements for oversight of course delivery by the overseas institution;
4. the legitimacy of any local agent or provider delivering on behalf of the overseas institution; and
5. the adequacy of safeguards for students if the provider ceased to operate in Australia.

Definition

2.3
An overseas higher education institution refers to a university or other recognised higher education provider whose legal origin is in a country other than Australia.

Process for assessing applications

2.4
The process for assessing applications should be transparent and equitable, and should be documented for the information of applicants.

2.5
The process should involve the independent verification of the credentials of the provider in the country of origin, and the independent verification of the relationship between the provider and any nominated local agents.

2.6
The application from a provider must be made to a legally authorised decision-maker, who should be bound to take advice from the relevant higher education authority in arriving at a decision about whether to give the provider permission to operate in the jurisdiction.

2.7
No applicant should be allowed to operate without the permission of the relevant accrediting authority. The permission to operate should be for specific courses, and should be subject to review after a maximum period of five years. The permission to operate is limited to the nominated local agents.

2.8
Jurisdictions should maintain a public register of courses permitted to operate in the jurisdiction and the registered providers and local agents delivering such courses.

Top

Criteria

2.9
To gain approval to operate in an Australian jurisdiction, an overseas institution will need to demonstrate that:

1. it is a bona fide institution, legally established in its country of origin;
2. that the courses to be offered have been properly accredited in the provider’s country of origin by an authority that, in the opinion of the Australian jurisdiction’s decision-maker, is the appropriate authority;
3. where the standing of the institution's accreditation status is not acceptable to the decision-maker, the decision-maker may require the proposed courses to be subject to a full accreditation process;
4. the course or courses are comparable in requirements and learning outcomes to a course at the same level in a similar field in Australia;
5. that the delivery arrangements, including the arrangements for academic oversight and quality assurance proposed by the overseas institution are comparable to those offered by accredited Australian providers; and
6. that appropriate financial and other arrangements exist to permit the successful delivery of the course in the Australian jurisdiction.

2.10
More elaborated operational guidelines should be developed.