chapter 8 the australian qualiﬁcations framework · 2013-01-13 · 8 the australian...

Chapter 8The Australian Qualifications Framework

Craig McInnis

Introduction

Australia is a federation of state and territory governments. The relationship of theCommonwealth and States with respect to the Australian higher education sys-tem is historically complex and has ambiguities that make a national policy onqualifications and standards problematic. Responsibilities for the universities areshared between the Commonwealth and eight States and Territories. The States andTerritories are responsible for legislation establishing universities and for accredi-tation approval processes. The Commonwealth provides most of the funds for theuniversities and is able to steer the policies of the universities by way of financialincentives and penalties related to a range of compliance measures.

All but three of the 39 universities in Australia are public, but the level ofCommonwealth funding has declined to a point where it is only a small proportionof the funds in the major institutions. The public universities in Australia have moreautonomy than their counterparts in most other countries. Importantly, Australianuniversities are ‘self-accrediting’ institutions. Neither the State nor Commonwealthgovernments directly control or manage what is taught, or how it is taught, or bywhom. Universities set their own entry standards as well as the academic standardsof their courses. As long as the universities have in place internal mechanismsto assess new course proposals and accredit courses, they are generally free todesign and deliver programs and to set standards of student achievement, withoutthe scrutiny of external bodies.

Traditionally, there have been few objective reference points for the standards ofAustralian awards and there are no significant external moderation processes. Fromtime to time there have been national discipline reviews and public enquiries toexamine academic standards. The discipline reviews typically focused on the per-formance of students in the honours programs (the 4-year undergraduate degree)that had a common currency nationally as a preparation for entry into research

C. McInnis (B)University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia

141D.D. Dill, M. Beerkens (eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality, Higher EducationDynamics 30, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_8,C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

142 C. McInnis

higher degrees. Benchmarking across universities, national and international, isincreasingly being used, but on the whole the approaches have not been particularlysystematic or effective (Stella and Woodhouse 2007, p. 22).

From a series of Australian case studies of universities, Anderson (2001, p. 1)observed that none of the vice chancellors and deans interviewed on the subjectof quality assurance ‘had any reliable or valid means of knowing how good theirdegrees were, for example, how intellectual standards might change over time, varybetween fields or compare with other institutions.’ Anderson found the methodstypically used by universities to check on the academic standards of their degreesincluded:

• Self-reporting of the standards of knowledge and the intellectual characteristicswhich distinguish between important levels of achievement;

• Graduate destinations, particularly admission to selective higher degreeprograms;

• Systems of examining that includes external examiners;• Academic Standards Panels working from a ‘Code of Practice for monitoring

academic quality and standards’ as operated by the Australian Vice-Chancellor’sCommittee (now Universities Australia) a decade ago;

• University-initiated rolling reviews of departments (or programs) that includescrutiny of the assessed work of students; and

• Scrutiny by professional organizations operating on the assumption that aminimum standard for entry into the relevant profession is identified.

The lack of clear national reference points compounds the problems associ-ated with a lack of consistency or transparency as to how academic standards aredetermined, applied, monitored, and maintained in Australian universities.

Despite the Commonwealth’s interest in quality assurance, it has not pursued anydirect measures or processes to set or monitor the academic standards of courses.However, a Review of Australian Higher Education (DEEWR 2008) has proposed araft of major changes, among them, a new accreditation, quality assurance, and regu-latory framework for tertiary education that fully embraces higher education and thevocational and training sector. These proposals were informed by an inquiry into thedesirability of a national higher education accreditation body (PhillipsKPA 2008).The review gives particular attention to the need for universities to demonstratelearning outcomes and academic standards.

The Policy Problem

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs(MCEETYA) brings together the various State and Commonwealth ministries andagencies to coordinate policies and the development of national agreements. The

8 The Australian Qualifications Framework 143

Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) was introduced in 1995 and phasedin over 5 years. It was initiated primarily to bring a diverse array of qualificationsand titles together as one nationally recognized scheme. It specifies qualificationstitles, their characteristic learning outcomes, and pathways to them (DEEWR 2008,p. 129). This is the critical reference document for universities and other providersas they develop new courses or amend courses to change their standing.

The main focus in the initial formulation of the AQF was on supporting reformsin the vocational and training sectors across the States. In the vocational and trainingsectors what employers and institutions needed to know, from an increasingly com-plex array of award-bearing courses across the states, was what students had learned.This was most obviously critical in terms of credit transfer within the sector, but asuniversities made their existing course more accessible and created more vocation-ally oriented courses, the credibility of their programs was at risk at the entry pointwhere judgments are made about the relative standing of prior qualifications.

The policy context has changed dramatically since the AQF was first devised andmore so over the past 5 years. There has been ongoing concern about the interna-tional recognition of Australian qualifications and its impact on both the recruitmentof international students and the general reputation of Australian higher education.International recognition of the quality of its qualifications is of critical concernto the Australian tertiary education sector. In particular, Australian universitiesare heavily dependent on their capacity to attract international fee-paying studentsand can ill-afford to allow any uncertainty or ambiguity about course structures,pathways, and standards.

The Commonwealth and State governments are highly sensitive to the economicand social significance of international students. The assessment of quality by over-seas students, institutions, and governments starts with their recognition of thenature, currency, and transferability of qualifications offered by Australian insti-tutions and where they stand in the international market. Of growing importance isthe recognition factor for domestic students, many of whom expect to work or studyoverseas and who increasingly will be competing for places in overseas universi-ties. Credit transfer arrangements are motivated by the need to build a national skillbase, to enable the system to respond to rapid changes in workplace requirementsfor skilled workers, and to promote lifelong learning. From the Commonwealthperspective Australia has been relatively weak on the clarity of its credit trans-fer between institutions and therefore exposed to the emerging competition fromuniversities developing the Bologna model.

The AQF provides a means of resolving or at least managing these policy prob-lems and minimizing three levels of tension, that is, State and Commonwealthpriorities, the different missions of the higher education and vocational sectors, andthe relationship between industry and institutional qualifications. By providing asystematically formulated frame of reference for the assessment of the expectedbroad learning outcomes of higher education qualifications, the Framework fills apolicy gap that gives other quality assurance mechanisms some reference pointsfor the accreditation of providers and courses and for auditing the performance ofinstitutions.

144 C. McInnis

The move toward a set of formal protocols for university accreditation wasprompted by an application in 1999 by Greenwich private university for listing onthe National Register. It exposed the lack of a national approach to the accredita-tion of higher education. Since the AQF was not designed with quality assuranceand academic standards as a central issue, its contribution to resolving the policyproblem of academic standards relates to its inclusion as part of a national qualityassurance framework introduced in 2000 following the Greenwich issue. The mainpolicy concern in this respect was the potential threat to Australia’s reputation forhigh academic standards in the face of new private for-profit providers and a moregeneral public concern about lower standards or ‘soft-marking’ for internationalstudents.

The sharper focus of the AQF on the higher education sector was also influ-enced by the rapid expansion of student numbers in the late 1990s and the dramaticincrease in Australia’s share of the international student market. At that time, theforms of quality assurance for higher education at a national level were limited,and the sophistication of processes at the level of the institution varied consider-ably. As the imperative for a ‘truly national system, recognized for its high quality’became more pressing, the Commonwealth and States agreed in 2000 to developthe Australian Higher Education Quality Assurance Framework (AHEQAF). At thispoint the AQF took on new significance with its broad descriptors of levels of knowl-edge, skills, and abilities characterized as learning outcomes specific to each levelof academic qualification.

At another level of policy problem, the arrangements between the Common-wealth and the States have been the subject of ongoing debate as the Commonwealthargued for a rationalizing of responsibility. The AQF is one example of an attemptto deal with this policy problem of:

. . . complexities in the shared arrangements, a lack of consistency to the largely historicallydetermined nature of them, and limitations and constraints that result from having ninejurisdictions involved. (DEST 2005, p. 1)

The Commonwealth pointed to the potential confusion created by inconsisten-cies in the implementation of National Protocols for Higher Education Processesby the States (DEST 2005) and the risks involved for consumers who need to beassured that providers of higher education in Australia have met certain criteria andstandards.

Main Elements of the Australian Qualifications Framework

The AQF is broadly characterized as a national policy instrument within theAHEQAF to protect the quality of Australian education and training. It comprisesa unified system of national qualifications for all education sectors to ensure thatthere is nationally consistent recognition of the outcomes of qualifications awardedby Australian schools, colleges, and universities. The Framework links together 15qualifications (Table 8.1) as a highly visible quality-assured national system.


Table 8.1 Qualifications by the educational sector in which they are most commonly used

Vocational Education and Training Sector Higher Education Sector

Doctoral degreeMaster’s degree

Vocational graduate diploma Graduate diplomaVocational graduate certificate Graduate certificate

Bachelor’s degreeAdvanced diploma Associate degree, advanced diplomaDiplomaSenior secondary certificates:Certificate IVCertificate IIICertificate IICertificate I

The conceptual approach embedded in the operational objectives of the AQFis essentially one of providing a formal classification process that regulates byidentifying and authorizing the various agencies responsible for accrediting thequalifications and maintaining a public register of those authorized. It defines thedifferences between the qualifications in terms of the levels, expectations, andlearning outcomes (broadly conceived).

The Framework has multiple purposes and is expected to meet the needs of adiverse range of stakeholders. It embraces, for example, the lifelong learning agendaof particular interest to the vocational and training sector, the promotion of accessand equity policy, the provision of more and higher quality vocational training, andthe recognition of prior learning.

The key elements of the Framework are

• A set of national guidelines and descriptors of all awards for each of the currentqualifications issued in Australian schools, vocational education and training, andhigher education sectors;

• A set of principles for articulation and credit transfer;• A register of authorities at the State levels empowered by the Australian

Government to accredit post-compulsory education and training to accreditqualifications and to issue qualifications; and

• A series of protocols for issuing qualifications and a structure for monitoringimplementation of the AQF and advising ministers, including recommending anychanges.

Table 8.1 perhaps gives the impression that there are tight boundaries betweenthe qualifications. However, the qualifications are actually grouped according to thesector in which they are most commonly used. Where the vocational and higher edu-cation sectors have qualification titles in common, the AQF Guidelines suggest they

146 C. McInnis

are ‘equivalent although sector-differentiated’; that is, they have parity of esteem:‘there are no standardized rankings or equivalences between different qualifica-tions issued in different sectors, as these qualifications recognize different typesof learning reflecting the distinctive educational responsibilities of each sector.’

The Framework guidelines (AQF Implementation Handbook 2005) spell out themain criteria for defining the qualifications listed in Table 8.1. The characteristicsof each qualification are expressed in terms of learning outcomes in an attemptto provide common ground for qualifications across the sectors. The table sug-gests a hierarchy of qualifications and a vertical pathway to the top. The patternof progression for individual students is not necessarily along that line and there isblurring of boundaries between the sectors, which makes the setting, monitoring,and consistency of standards more difficult to manage at the system level.

The guidelines for the bachelor’s degree illustrate the detail of the Frameworkand the extent of its influence. First, concerning who has the authority for thelearning outcomes of the degree, there is a generic statement to the effect that theuniversities have autonomy on these matters. Second, with respect to standards inthe higher education sector, the guidelines refer to the responsibility for the assess-ment of individuals as resting ultimately with the provider institution or organizationand not those who actually conduct the testing of achievement.

The third element is the ‘Characteristics of the Learning Outcomes’ provided foreach level of qualification. For the bachelor’s degree, they include, for example,

• The acquisition of a systematic and coherent body of knowledge;• The development of academic skills and attributes necessary to undertake

research and to comprehend and evaluate new information;• A foundation for self-directed and lifelong learning; and• The acquisition of interpersonal and teamwork skills appropriate to employment

and/or further study.

Reference is also made to the ‘significant depth and progressive development ofthe course content’ in the bachelor’s degree as the basis for postgraduate study andprofessional careers.

The introduction of the associate degree provides an example of the limitedextent to which the AQF can contribute to the assurance of quality. The associatedegree is of 2 years’ duration following the end of secondary school, that is, post–year 12. Again, it is the universities that have the authority to set the objectives andacademic requirements of the courses. There is potentially a high level of perme-ability in the boundaries between the associate and bachelor’s degrees and betweenassociate degrees and advanced diplomas shown in Table 8.1.

The characteristics of the learning outcomes for the associate degree specified bythe AQF include the ‘acquisition of the foundational underpinnings of one or moredisciplines’ to emphasize that the degree is ‘generally but not exclusively articulatedwith relevant bachelor’s degree programs’. The degree is also intended to providea broad-based point of entry to employment especially in the associate professionaloccupations.


The AQF suggests that the distinctive features of the associate degree include thefoundational research-based knowledge of an academic discipline and the broad,often multidisciplinary content. The critical point with respect to academic stan-dards, from the higher education perspective, is that the associate degree may alsobe offered by technical and further education colleges and by private training orga-nizations, although it does not appear in the vocational section of Table 8.1. Thenature of the research base is open to interpretation. However, the 2008 Review givesconsiderable attention to the significance of research. The relationship between theAQF and the National Protocols is not helpful on this point. As the Guthrie Review(2005) – charged with further development of the approvals process – pointed out,the Protocols were ‘silent on the requirements for scholarship and research to under-pin the course approved as is the expectation at Australian universities’. It notedthat the States and Territories have taken different stances on this issue with someassessing the qualifications of staff as a means of meeting the requirements, whileothers expecting evidence of staff research activity. This then raises questions asto the absence of a clear distinction between university and other higher educationproviders.

The Guthrie Review (2005, p. 22) also drew attention to the potential for under-mining both the AQF and the awards themselves, as a result of the different historicalarrangements across the States and Territories. It identified a great deal of variationacross the States and Territories in the approvals process and criteria and noted that‘there is a long way to go to achieve consistency’ (Guthrie et al. 2005, p. 9). Oneof the enduring problems embedded in such an arrangement is that the ability ofthe universities to maintain standards is not really tested closely by the AQF orby the protocols. The Guthrie Review (2005, p. 6) appeared to accept the assump-tion that the universities have ‘long standing traditions about required standards forawards and established academic processes to monitor those standards’. It arguedthat the task of the third ‘leg’ of the quality assurance framework, AUQA, is toaudit the extent to which this occurs, but not the actual standards of student learningoutcomes.

The National Register

The National Register in the Qualifications Framework has five sub-categories:

1. Government Accreditation Authorities;2. Universities and Other Self-Accrediting Higher Education Institutions;3. Non-Self-Accrediting Higher Education Institutions and their AQF-approved

qualifications;4. Registered Training Organizations and their AQF-approved qualifications (VET

sector); and5. Overseas Higher Education Institutions and their AQF-comparable approved

qualifications.

148 C. McInnis

To be listed on the National Register a university must have been recognizedor established by a State or Territory Minister. Again, it needs to be noted thatthe Commonwealth does not have the authority to approve the establishment ofproviders. All Australian universities that have been recognized or established by aMCEETYA Minister are listed on the Register. Higher education courses deliveredby approved non-self-accrediting providers are also listed. Only government accred-itation authorities listed on the AQF Register are able to accredit courses. The effectof this is that by approving a course for listing, the State and Territory ministers aredeemed to vouch for the quality of the higher education provider, the course, or theaccreditation authority.

Advisory Board

An Advisory Board manages the AQF. The Advisory Board has a modest secretariat,and most of the cost of accrediting new non-self-accrediting providers is borne bythe State agencies. This process does not occur very often, and the cost of eachexercise is therefore not readily available.

The Advisory Board has an essentially custodial rather than operational role inthe implementation of the AQF. It manages a fairly straightforward bureaucraticprocess of inventory keeping and procedural measures that provide national orderand consensus to deal with the diversity of qualifications across sectors. It is notempowered to take initiatives to shape the standards of the qualifications it registers,although the members, representing the diverse cross-sectoral interest groups, bringtheir expertise to bear by informing and shaping the national agenda. Similarly, theextensive quality assurance processes that underpin the Framework qualificationsare the responsibility of each of the sectors.

Implementation of the Framework

It was not until 2000 that the AQF took a more central place in the overallscheme of quality assurance for higher education. In 2000, MCEETYA agreed onan Australian Higher Education Quality Assurance Framework with five elements(Fig. 8.1) including the Qualifications Framework. The two significant new elementswere the establishment of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) andformulation of the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes.

AUQA and the Qualifications Framework

AUQA conducts quality assurance audits of higher education institutions on a cycli-cal basis, and, importantly, it also audits and reports on the accreditation bodies ofthe states and territories. AUQA is required to report on the ‘relative standards of theAustralian higher education system . . . including their international standing’ and


States Accreditation

based on National Protocols

Australian UniversitiesQuality Agency

Audits of institutions and accreditation

authorities

CommonwealthFunding performance data and quality assurance plans

UniversitiesResponsible for

academic standards

Australian Qualifications FrameworkNational registers of providers

accreditation agencies, andqualifications guidelines

Fig. 8.1 The Australian higher education quality assurance framework

to address the issue of the maintenance, deterioration or improvement of academicstandards. To do this, AUQA looks at the ways in which institutions set and accessstandards including moderation methods, formal benchmarking (including interna-tional benchmarking), and less structured inter-institutional comparisons (includinginternational comparisons).

The Qualifications Framework provides AUQA with a reference point fornational standards to the extent that AUQA audits cover the basic expectations ofawards in terms of learning outcomes, as well as accreditation processes and theoperations of the agencies that conduct the accreditations. AUQA’s connection tothe National Protocols and academic standards comes through its role in the auditprocess of assessing whether a university’s objectives are consistent with the estab-lished criteria for a university. AUQA also checks to verify that agencies involvedin the accreditation process of non self-accrediting institutions are applying theprotocols correctly.

MCEETYA advises AUQA on new and emerging issues related to theQualifications Framework. It has, for example, suggested to AUQA that it mighttake a more active role in auditing universities against a set of ‘Good PracticePrinciples for Credit Transfer and Articulation’ it developed and adopted. This doesnot enable MCEETYA, AUQA, or AQF to set standards, but it does in principleprovide a check against university practices that might inflate the value of one qual-ification or dilute the standards of another in the process of determining their relativemerit for selection purposes.

150 C. McInnis

The National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes

The National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes are the key regula-tory mechanism for defining and accrediting universities in Australia. The NationalProtocols were revised in July 2006 for implementation in December 2007. TheStates and Commonwealth agreed on significant revisions to clarify approval pro-cesses and criteria to address the increasing diversity of higher education providers.They have the express purpose of ensuring that consistent criteria and standards areused in the approval process for new institutions and courses.

The five separate Protocols set out criteria and processes for approving universities andother types of higher education institutions. State and territory governments accredit courseswhere the institution is not authorized to do so (PhillipsKPA, 2008, p. 8). The protocolscover the following:

• Protocol A relates to all higher education institutions;• Protocol B relates to the registration of non-self-accrediting higher education

institutions and the accreditation of their higher education courses;• Protocol C relates to awarding self-accrediting authority to higher education

institutions other than universities;• Protocol D relates to establishing Australian universities; and• Protocol E relates to overseas higher education institutions seeking to operate in

Australia.

The revised protocols specify standards for the registration and/or accreditationprocesses that enable certification that an institution, or a course, meets appropriatestandards. They were accompanied by a set of National Guidelines for each categoryof higher education institutions. The guidelines provide a detailed specification ofthe requirements outlined in the protocols with the aim of improving the level ofnational consistency in the application of the revised protocols. The intent of thegovernments to date has been to work toward harmonization in arrangements ratherthan absolute uniformity (PhillipsKPA 2008, p. 12).

In the previous version the protocol spelling out the criteria for recognition asa university was the outcome of a major debate. This included offering a broadrange of disciplines, engaging in research, and having a culture of sustained schol-arship. The term university is now protected under a Commonwealth CorporationsAct (2001), but it is the States that can take action to prevent and penalize ‘degreemills’, which may be falsely presenting themselves as Australian universities.The Australian strategy has been to define what makes a university and then togrant institutions the right to be self-accrediting. There is generally no regular re-accreditation process. However, the 2008 Review of Higher Education recommendsthat all universities should be re-accredited and suggests a 10-year cycle.

It is important to note that existing higher education institutions (includinguniversities) are to be assessed regularly through the standard quality assurance pro-cesses, including external quality audits that apply to each institution. For example,the universities would satisfy this requirement through the regular external audit by


AUQA whereas overseas higher education institutions operating in Australia wouldbe subject to the quality assurance requirements of their overseas accrediting author-ity and also any other requirements specified as conditions of the approval to operatein Australia. The growth of private providers has been a key factor in testing thevalue and effectiveness of the frameworks. There are currently around 150 non-university providers in Australia. The number of non-self-accrediting institutionsgrew by 35% in the 3 years from 2005 to 2007 and is anticipated to grow at anincreasing rate (PhillipsKPA 2008, p. 25).

Mutual recognition under the National Protocols and Guidelines is a major pointof concern for governments, providers and students. This involves a standard beingrecognized as equivalent between jurisdictions. That is, an organization registeredin one State should be able to operate in another since the standards underpinningregistration should be the same.

The arguments for maintaining the current arrangements are largely centered onthe belief that local variations are appropriate and respond to jurisdiction-specificpolicies and priorities. The arguments against the current arrangements include theviews that the integrity of Australian qualifications in off shore markets is potentiallyat risk, and that there are considerable inefficiencies associated with eight differentregulatory bodies. More particularly, it is argued that

. . . higher education policy is effectively a national responsibility and higher educationprovision is increasingly taking place in the context of national and international marketsfor education, requiring the maximum level of national consistency in costs, processes anddecision-making for recognition and accreditation. . .. (PhillipsKPA 2008, p. 48)

Two models of accreditation were proposed by this inquiry: a harmonized modelthat would coordinate current arrangements to maximize national consistency whileallowing for local conditions at the State levels and variations on a uniform modelthat would bring together all accreditation processes and standard setting activitiesunder a central body.

The revised National Protocols also outline obligations on government accredi-tation authorities, including the requirement for all jurisdictions to undergo regularexternal quality audits by AUQA. The revised National Protocols will apply toboth new and existing institutions. Compliance will be regularly assessed throughthe standard quality assurance processes that apply to each institution (MCEETYA2006). To give effect to these revised protocols, National Guidelines for HigherEducation Approval Processes were developed. However, the implementation hasbeen overtaken by the MCEETYA inquiry, and the 2008 Review of HigherEducation has effectively put these developments on hold.

Regardless of the specific arrangements that result from these initiatives, thisrepresents the start of a new era in national consistency across the states and territo-ries. The guidelines were aimed at achieving greater national consistency in highereducation approvals to allow for the proposed introduction of new types of highereducation institutions in Australia, including

152 C. McInnis

• Specialist universities: High-quality higher education institutions meeting thesame requirements as other universities, with the exception of breadth of fieldsof study. They will be required to offer courses including research masters anddoctorates, and undertake research activity, in one or two fields of study only.

• Self-accrediting institutions other than universities: Selected non-self-accrediting providers, usually with a strong track record in re-accreditation, willbe able to seek authority to accredit their own courses.

• University colleges: This title will be protected under the revised NationalProtocols, reserved for use by new universities, which at point of establishmentneed only undertake research and research training in one field. It may also beused by provisionally approved ‘greenfield’ institutions, based on a plan, whichwould normally be mentored by an existing university.

• Overseas institutions: Clearer rules around entry and their use of university titlewill assist more overseas institutions to establish a presence in Australia and offertheir own qualifications, thereby increasing choice for students.

Again, these have been developed further by the 2008 Review proposals that giveparticular attention to research and the nexus between research and teaching, as adistinctive feature of universities. The review proposes modifications to the 2007National Protocols with three major types of institutions:

• Comprehensive universities: These should provide research higher degrees in atleast three broad fields and undertake research in all fields in which researchdegrees are offered. They should also conduct research in the fields in whichcoursework degrees are offered;

• Specialist universities: These should provide research higher degrees in one ortwo broad fields and research in those fields. They should also conduct researchin the fields in which coursework degrees are offered;

• Other higher education institutions: Unlike the first two types, these will not berequired to conduct research. They will focus on delivering degrees at levels andin any number of fields as they are accredited.

Under these proposals university colleges could still be established on a pathwayto full university status by initially delivering qualifications up to master’s course-work degrees in at least three broad fields of study and research master’s and PhDsin at least one field.

Impact of the Australian Qualifications Framework

The AQF was first developed with the brief to ‘protect’ the qualifications guide-lines and to ‘promote and monitor’ national implementation of the Framework. Thepassive nature of the language is telling. While the Advisory Board can advise, pro-tect, guide, register, inform, promote, and monitor, it is not in a position to directly


initiate new qualifications or to set academic standards. It has a role in respondingto initiatives from providers or from governments.

There has been no serious opposition to the Framework from the higher educa-tion sector, and it has been uncontroversial, perhaps because it is relatively weak incharacter (Young 2003, p. 226). It serves the purpose of informing students as towhat different qualifications mean relative to others, and it provides something of agatekeeper role for institutions introducing new courses. Like the national qualifi-cations frameworks of Ireland and Scotland, it has, as Young suggests, limited andindirect power. Clearly, if the 2008 Review proposals to ‘modernize’ the AQF areadopted, this will change (DEEWR 2008, p. 193).

It is noteworthy that while the peak body of the universities, UniversitiesAustralia, does not appear in the AQF it is typically referred to as having a long-standing role in developing guidelines relevant to quality assurance, for example, a‘Code of Practice’ for maintaining and monitoring academic quality and standardsin higher degrees. In practice, it appears there is tacit agreement at the level of theAQF Advisory Board that the qualifications descriptors are effectively ‘owned’ bythe universities through the membership of Universities Australia on the AdvisoryBoard. Universities Australia provides advice and comment on the Frameworkdescriptors and proposals for new qualifications.

Lifelong Learning

As part of the national strategy for lifelong learning, another test of the impact ofthe AQF arose from a suggestion that it could be used as the basis for a customizedportfolio approach that recognizes modules of learning completed, through differ-ent providers at different times. It was argued, hypothetically, that a student mighttake a mix of subjects from diverse providers and the ‘total package’ could be rec-ognized as a credential such as a bachelor’s degree. This fairly unlikely scenarioprovided a fundamental test of the role of the AQF as a policy instrument to assurequality. A key element of the descriptor for the bachelor’s degree is ‘the acquisitionof a systematic and coherent body of knowledge’. The portfolio proposal raised thequestion of how significant the coherence of a degree program needs to be and howthat is addressed in quality assurance processes.

The Advisory Board responded that while flexibility in pathways is central to therecognition of prior learning in all sectors, the portfolio notion was likely to devaluethe degree awarded. It points to the importance of establishing appropriate assess-ment guidelines based on agreed national standards for the qualification level. Allthat the Framework can do is to verify indirectly that the qualifications awardedin higher education have taken cognizance of the AQF descriptors and learningoutcomes appropriate to the level of the award. To close this gap, the AdvisoryCommittee argued that the only way to deal with a pathways or portfolio approachis to establish an assessment authority that would be responsible for assessment-onlypathways or portfolios.

154 C. McInnis

Conclusions

The broad educational goals of the Australian Qualifications Framework are com-mon to most national qualifications systems. That is, they create transparency forthe users, minimize barriers to progression, and maximize access, flexibility, andportability between different sectors (Young 2003, p. 224). There are, however,deficiencies and limits to the impact of national qualifications frameworks gener-ally as quality assurance instruments that promote and enhance academic standards(Blackmur 2004; McInnis 2003; Young 2003), and these are being addressed by thecurrent policy developments in Australia.

The proposed reforms from the 2008 Review of Australian Higher Educationin relation to accreditation, quality assurance, and the regulatory framework focusdirectly on the need to demonstrate outcomes and standards. At the time of writingit is not possible to predict just how the Commonwealth will respond to the recom-mendations of the review. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the review provide a pictureof some urgency to meet the significant and growing concerns about the complex,fragmented, and inefficient arrangements outlined above. Among other things thereview concluded that:

• The quality assurance framework is too focused on inputs and processes and doesnot give sufficient weight to assuring and demonstrating outcomes and standards;

• Arrangements for mutual recognition of providers and courses operating acrossstate and territory boundaries are inefficient and do not operate effectively; and

• Within higher education the framework is applied unevenly so that not allproviders are reaccredited on a regular basis.

The primary motive of the proposed changes is to ensure that Australia mustmaintain confidence in accreditation and quality assurance to enhance the interna-tional position of its higher education system. The key recommendation is for theadoption of a national framework for higher education accreditation, quality assur-ance, and regulation. The features of this model include an AQF ‘with enhancedarchitecture and updated and more coherent descriptors of learning outcomes.’(DEEWR 2008, p. 116). The review points out that, with the exception of theassociate degree, there has been little change to the AQF since it was introduced.The review argues that since the AQF is a key element of the quality assuranceframework for both the vocational and higher education, responsibility for a revisedqualifications framework should rest with a national regulatory body.

The proposal for an independent national regulatory body is a major initiativethat if adopted will, in addition to taking responsibility for the AQF, accredit newproviders including new universities, re-accredit existing universities over a 10-yearcycle, and carry out quality audits of all providers focused on the institution’s aca-demic standards and the processes for setting, monitoring, and maintaining them.It is proposed that the regulatory body will have the power to remove the right ofinstitutions to operate if necessary.


Regardless of the extent to which the AQF is currently limited in its capacityto directly ensure academic standards, it is now firmly embedded as part of a suiteof measures and organizations that MCEETYA and the Commonwealth can callinto play at a national level. Unlike some models elsewhere, the profile of the AQFhas been enhanced beyond its initial goals by the quality assurance function. Thepotential of the Framework as a policy instrument to monitor and improve academicstandards is likely to be strengthened if assessment processes and standards at dis-cipline level are clearly linked to learning outcomes at the appropriate level of theAQF (DEEWR 2008, p. 136).

References

Anderson, D. (2001). When somebody’s watching: Perspectives on academic audit. VictoriaUniversity Public Seminar, 6 July 2001, Melbourne, VIC.

Australian Qualifications Framework Implementation Handbook (AQF) (2005). http://www.aqf.edu.au/implem.htm. Accessed 12 June 2009.

Blackmur, D. (2004). Issues in higher education quality assurance. Australian Journal of PublicAdministration, 63(2), 105–116.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2008). Review ofAustralian Higher Education, Final Report. Canberra: Australian Government. http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx.Accessed 12 June 2009.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2005). Building better foundations forhigher education in Australia: A discussion about re-aligning Commonwealth-State respon-sibilities. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/commonwealth_state_responsibility_higher_ed.htm. Accessed 12 June 2009.

Guthrie, G., Johnston, S., King, R. (2005). Further development of the national protocolsfor higher education approval processes. Canberra, ACT: DEST. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/reviews/guthrie_review/www. Accessed 12June 2009.

McInnis, C. (2003). Touchstones for excellence: assessing institutional integrity in diverse settingsand systems. In E. De Corte (Ed.), Excellence in higher education. London: Portland Press.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2006).National protocols for higher education approval processes. http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/RevisedNationalProtocols20081.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2007.

PhillipsKPA (2008). Inquiry into the desirability of a national higher education accreditationbody. Final report to the Joint Committee on Higher Education. http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/JCHE_National_HE_Accreditation_Agency_June_08_Final_Report_.pdf.

Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2007). Benchmarking in Australian higher education: A thematicanalysis of AUQA audit reports. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Universities Quality Agency.

Young, M. F. D. (2003). National qualifications frameworks as a global phenomenon: a compara-tive perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 223–237.

chapter 8 the australian qualiﬁcations framework · 2013-01-13 · 8 the australian...

Documents