Collaboration affects accreditation under TEQSA in one consistent way: the provider whose name is on the award remains fully responsible for every standard, no matter which partner delivers, assesses, supports or reviews. Third-party delivery under Standard 5.4, articulation agreements, shared services and external review networks are all legitimate and often valuable, and each one must be governed, monitored and evidenced by the provider as if it were doing the work itself.
This article works through the four kinds of collaboration a private provider is most likely to enter, what the Threshold Standards require of each, and what the evidence looks like. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and course accreditation work in which partnership arrangements have been a recurring source of both opportunity and requests for further information.
What collaboration means for accreditation under TEQSA
The Threshold Standards contain one standard written specifically for collaboration. Standard 5.4, Delivery with Other Parties, requires that when a course or part of a course is delivered through another party, the provider verifies the party's capability, maintains the same standards of quality and integrity, monitors the arrangement, and retains responsibility for the student experience and the award. Everything else in the framework applies to a partnered course exactly as it applies to one the provider delivers alone.
The principle assessors work from is that responsibility does not transfer. A provider can contract out teaching, marking, student support, marketing, learning platforms or facilities, and each contract shifts the work but not the obligation. In my experience the applications that struggle are the ones that describe the partner's capability in the partner's words and cannot show the provider itself checking, monitoring or intervening.
Third-party delivery under Standard 5.4
The commonest form is a teaching partnership, where a registered provider's accredited course is delivered by another organisation, sometimes an RTO, sometimes an offshore institution, sometimes a commercial education company. TEQSA reads these arrangements closely because the student is enrolled with one entity and taught by another, and the gap between them is where quality fails.
The evidence assessors look for is a written agreement that sets out who does what and allocates academic authority to the provider; due diligence on the partner's staff, facilities and financial standing before the agreement was signed; the provider's academic board approving the arrangement as an academic decision; moderation of the partner's assessment by the provider's own staff; regular monitoring reports to the academic board; and a right to audit, suspend and terminate. A new third-party arrangement is also a material change under s.29 of the TEQSA Act, notifiable within fourteen days of the provider becoming aware, and failures of control over a third party are on TEQSA's list of notifiable events.
Articulation and credit agreements
Articulation agreements, under which graduates of one institution's qualification receive specified credit into another's award, sit under Standard 1.2 on credit and recognition of prior learning rather than Standard 5.4, because the partner is not delivering the provider's course. They still need governance. The academic board must have approved the credit mapping, the mapping must be reviewed when either qualification changes, and the provider must monitor how articulating students perform.
TEQSA's interest here is twofold. It asks whether the credit granted is consistent with the learning outcomes of the receiving course, and whether the marketing of the pathway under Standard 7.1 promises more than the agreement delivers. In my experience the second problem is the more frequent, because pathway marketing is written by recruiters and reviewed by no one with academic authority.
Shared services and outsourced functions
Small providers routinely share or outsource services: a learning management system, a library subscription, counselling, IT, student administration, even an academic integrity investigation service. Each is a collaboration for the purposes of the standards, and each must be governed. The relevant standards are whichever ones the service touches, with Standard 6.2 requiring the governing body to oversee delegated and outsourced functions.
The evidence is a register of third-party arrangements maintained by the provider, contracts with service levels, monitoring reports, and a periodic review of each arrangement reported to the board. I have written about the wider strategic case in the impact of partnerships and collaboration on higher education, and about international partnerships in TEQSA and the global education market.
External review and benchmarking networks
The fourth kind of collaboration is the one TEQSA most actively encourages. Standard 5.3 requires that courses are reviewed with external referencing, and Standard 6.3 requires academic governance informed by external input. Benchmarking partnerships, external examiner networks and peer review consortia are how private providers meet those requirements without a university's scale.
The evidence is the benchmarking agreement, the data exchanged, the report to the academic board and the action taken. I have set out why this is more than a compliance task: a provider that benchmarks well knows where it stands before TEQSA asks, and at renewal it can point to a completed cycle of review and improvement, which is what the self-assurance report is for.
Governing collaboration well
Across all four forms, the questions are the same. Has the academic board approved the arrangement as an academic decision, not merely the corporate board as a commercial one, and is there a written agreement that allocates authority to the provider? Is the arrangement on a register, monitored, and reported? And could the provider, if the partner failed, protect the students and the award? A provider that can answer yes to each, and show the record, will find that TEQSA treats collaboration as a strength rather than a risk.
Download the Darlo Re-registration Evidence Index Template
— a structured index for the self-assurance report that includes a third-party arrangements section, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the template
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 accredit a course delivered by a third party?
TEQSA accredits the course to the registered provider, which remains responsible for it under Standard 5.4 regardless of who delivers it. The partner is not accredited and the provider must verify, monitor and govern the arrangement.
Is a new partnership a material change?
A new third-party delivery arrangement is listed by TEQSA as a notifiable material change under s.29 of the TEQSA Act, to be notified within fourteen days of the provider becoming aware. Failures of control over a third party are also notifiable.
Which standard covers articulation agreements?
Standard 1.2 on credit and recognition of prior learning, because the partner is not delivering the provider's course. The academic board must approve the credit mapping and the provider must monitor articulating students' performance.
Does TEQSA require external benchmarking?
Standard 5.3 requires external referencing in course review and Standard 6.3 requires external input to academic governance. Benchmarking partnerships are the usual way private providers satisfy both, and the evidence is the agreement, the data and the academic board's response.
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.