The feds have quietly released submissions to the Australian Qualifications Framework review
The vast task, being undertaken by Peter Noonan and colleagues, received 140 or so submissions, addressing all sorts of accreditation issues – micro-credentials keep coming up, not surprising universities (for example, Deakin and Swinburne ) already offer them. The peak lobbies all counsel caution.
Universities Australia: “micro-credentials are diverse and are changing rapidly. Even more than with current AQF courses, recognition of prior learning is a matter on which there is no substitute for the informed academic judgement that universities exercise on the ground.”
Group of Eight: “there is value in embracing certain types of short-form credentials in the AQF, there would be benefit ensuing the scope for this initially is not expanded beyond self-accrediting institutions, with those institutions afforded to capacity to allocate a short-form credential to an AQF Level where it leads to or offers credit towards the attainment of a qualification at an existing AQF Level.”
Innovative Research Universities: “one major policy and practical test is whether TEQSA can afford to accredit each short course from a non-self-accrediting provider. The potential array is enormous, creating a practical barrier for TEQSA, while it would impose it into the detailed operations of each non-self-accrediting provider to an extent that is not justified.”
Australian Technology Network: “the market for short course offerings is rapidly changing in the Australian higher education context as providers become more sophisticated in their offerings. As such, the ATN does not feel that there is a current need to include these in the AQF, rather the ATN would support a New Zealand styled approach of recognising the credentials without including them in the national qualifications framework.”
Regional Universities Network: “There does not seem to be a pressing reason to include them in the AQF. There is potential for a huge amount of administrative and regulatory work to be required, at significant cost, for what would essentially be courses at sub-subject level. Universities could be asked to make information about their credit recognition policies and approaches relating to micro-credentials readily available to students and the public, as part of a broader approach to increase transparency about credit recognition.”
No submissions from TAFE Directors Australia or the Independent Tertiary Education Council appear on the public list.