The innovation private higher education providers actually deliver happens in four places: disciplines too small or too specialised for a university to bother with, courses built inside an industry rather than beside it, delivery models shaped around a particular kind of student, and speed, meaning the ability to design, accredit and launch a course in a fraction of the time a large institution needs. It does not happen in technology for its own sake, and it never happens by working around the Threshold Standards.
This article describes each of those four areas as I have seen them in fifteen years of TEQSA registration and course accreditation work, and then explains how to innovate inside the Standards, which is the only kind of innovation that survives an assessment.
Where innovation private higher education is known for actually comes from
Private providers are structurally different from universities in ways that matter for innovation. They are small, so a decision can be made in a month rather than a year. They are usually single-discipline or few-discipline, so the whole institution understands the field. And they are exposed to the market in a way a public university is not, so a course that does not serve students or employers is closed rather than subsidised. Those three facts, not any special creativity, explain where the innovation private higher education is known for actually comes from.
They also explain its limits. A small provider cannot fund research, cannot cross-subsidise an unprofitable but important discipline, and cannot absorb a failed experiment. Our article on the pros and cons of private higher education in Australia sets out both sides. The point here is that the constraints and the innovation are the same thing seen from two angles.
Niche disciplines and industry integration
The clearest innovation is in disciplines universities have abandoned or never entered: specialist design fields, particular branches of theology, complementary health, specific creative industries, niche areas of business and technology. A private provider can build a bachelor degree in a field where the national cohort is a few hundred students, staff it with practitioners who hold the right AQF qualifications, and give those students something no university offers.
Industry integration is the second area, and it is where I see the most genuine originality. The best private providers are not partnered with an industry; they are embedded in it. Teaching staff are practising professionals, assessment uses live briefs, work-integrated learning is the spine of the course rather than a final-year placement, and the industry advisory group actually shapes the curriculum. Standard 3.1 on course design and Standard 3.2 on staffing both accommodate this, provided the academic oversight is real and the scholarship requirements are met.
Delivery models and speed
The third area is delivery. Private providers were running intensive, block, evening and blended models long before universities took them seriously, because their students were working adults who would not enrol in anything else. The innovation is not the mode; it is the fit between the mode and the cohort, evidenced in Standard 1.3 progression data and Standard 2.2 support arrangements that were designed for the actual students rather than a notional school leaver.
Speed is the fourth, and the least appreciated. In my experience a well-run private provider can take a course from concept through external review and academic board approval in three to four months, and through TEQSA course accreditation within the statutory nine-month assessment period. A university might take three years to reach the same point. That speed is an advantage only if the course arrives complete; a fast application that is thin draws a request for further information and loses the time it saved. Our discussion of the future of degree programs in higher education looks at what that speed makes possible.
How to innovate inside the Standards, not around them
The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 is written in outcomes, not methods. It does not say how a course must be taught, how long a teaching period must be, or where learning must happen. It says that course design must be informed by the discipline and by advances in the field, that assessment must be valid, that staff must be qualified, and that the academic board must oversee all of it. That leaves a great deal of room, and assessors are not hostile to novelty. They are hostile to novelty that cannot show how it meets the standard.
The innovations that fail assessment share a pattern. The provider designs something new, then tries to describe it in the language of a conventional course, and the description does not match the thing. A block-mode course described as if it were semester-based, a practitioner-taught program whose staffing evidence is silent on scholarship, an industry-embedded degree whose academic board never saw the industry partner's role. TEQSA's guidance notes help here, with the usual caveat that they are not themselves Threshold Standards.
What the regulator's attention actually protects
It is tempting to read TEQSA as the enemy of innovation. In my experience it is the opposite. A provider that can show an assessor exactly how an unconventional course meets every relevant standard has done the hard design work that makes the course good, and the accreditation becomes a form of validation that employers and students trust. The regulator's role in keeping that trust intact is the subject of our article on why TEQSA matters to the future of private higher education in Australia.
The innovation private higher education can be proud of is the kind that names the standard it meets and shows the evidence. Everything else is a pilot.
Download the New Course Readiness Checklist
— a one-page test of whether an unconventional course is ready for the academic board and for TEQSA, drawn from our TEQSA registration work with private providers. Get the checklist
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Does TEQSA allow non-standard delivery models?
Yes. The Threshold Standards are written in outcomes rather than methods and do not prescribe teaching periods, modes or locations. A block, intensive or blended course must show that its design, assessment, staffing and student support meet the standards for the students actually enrolled.
Can practising professionals teach in a private higher education course?
Yes, provided they meet Standard 3.2, which generally means a qualification at least one AQF level above the course being taught or equivalent professional experience, together with continuing scholarship. The academic board must oversee staffing and the evidence must be in the application.
How fast can a private provider accredit a new course?
In my experience the internal cycle of design, external review and academic board approval takes three to four months, and TEQSA's substantive assessment of a course accreditation application is due within nine months of commencement, extendable by a further period of up to nine months.
What makes an innovative course fail TEQSA assessment?
Most often a mismatch between the course as designed and the course as described, so that the application cannot show how the novel elements meet the relevant standards. Assessors are not hostile to novelty; they are hostile to claims without evidence.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.