Award Course Approval Policy

1. Purpose

1.1 The Award Course Approval Policy (the policy) applies to the course approval process for all award courses offered by UTS (the approval, accreditation, reaccreditation, phasing out and discontinuation). The policy should be read in conjunction with the Award Course Approval and Publication Procedure (the procedure).

2. Scope

2.1 This policy applies to all award courses offered by UTS. It does not apply to non-award study.

2.2 Changes to an accredited course, including phasing out and discontinuation, must be approved in line with Rule 3.6, Student Rules and the procedure.

2.3 Changes to the admission criteria of a course must be approved in line with Rule 3.6 and the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.

2.4 Changes to the course name, award title and award abbreviation of a course must be approved in line with the Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy.

3. Principles

3.1 The course approval process encourages the development of high-quality courses that are sustainable, accessible (based on any inherent requirements) (refer Accessibility and Inclusion Policy), and provide learning outcomes and experiences that are aligned with the UTS 2027 strategy and the Graduate Profile Framework (available at Our graduate attributes).

3.2 The course approval process helps UTS to respond to new opportunities and the changing educational environment in line with the UTS 2027 strategy.

3.3 Course approvals must be based on a thorough assessment of the opportunities and risks.

3.4 The course approval process is designed to encourage and support sound curriculum design, academic integrity and the development of sustainable course structures.

3.5 Course approvals are guided by relevant legislation and UTS rules, policies and principles relevant to the design, delivery, management and quality assurance of award courses; acknowledging that these may change from time to time.

3.6 All courses must comply with the relevant provisions of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (Cwlth) and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).

3.7 Resourcing information required as part of the course proposal, the authority approving the proposal and the complexity of the approval process shall be commensurate with the opportunities and risks associated with the proposal.

3.8 The publication of official award course and fee information must be managed with quality and reliability in line with the rules and the procedure.

3.9 This policy and the procedure recognise the Curriculum and Student System (CASS) and the Course Information System (CIS) as the primary and authoritative sources of award course information for publishing purposes and the Fees and payment section of the UTS website as the primary and authoritative source of official tuition (and other) fee information for award courses (as outlined in Rule 4.1.4).

4. Policy statements

4.1 Each course must have an identified faculty owner that is responsible for course development, accreditation, maintenance and reaccreditation.

4.2 The dean has overall responsibility for course proposals developed by their faculty, ensuring course compliance and regulatory requirements.

4.3 Approval of new courses and the reaccreditation of existing courses is a 3-stage process. The requirements for each stage are included in this policy, the procedure and the Delegations.

4.4 Approval of phasing out or discontinuation of existing courses is a 2-stage process. The requirements for each stage are included in this policy, the procedure and the Delegations.

4.5 Approvals are managed through the online curriculum approval process (OCAP) system. This system has pre-formatted templates to meet the university’s requirements for approval of new courses and the reaccreditation, phasing out and discontinuation of existing courses.

4.6 The Provost may advise, in exceptional circumstances, on an alternate approval process and level of supporting documentation for specific course proposals.

Course approval and reaccreditation

Stage 1: Business case

4.7 The first stage of the course approval and reaccreditation process is the business case. The purpose of this stage is to:

assess the course’s viability, strategic alignment and potential commercial interest
consider all planning issues that may have an impact on the quality, risk management and successful delivery and management of a course, and
ensure that all internal and external stakeholders have been consulted and impact of course development has been acknowledged.

4.8 The dean is the sponsor of all new course or reaccreditation proposals. The business case must be endorsed by the dean before consideration by the Courses Planning Committee (CPC).

4.9 The CPC recommends the business case for approval by the Provost in line with this policy and the procedure.

Stage 2: Course accreditation

4.10 Course accreditation is the second stage of the course approval and reaccreditation process. The purpose of this stage is to ensure that the course:

meets, or continues to meet, UTS’s educational standards and requirements for the assigned award level
reflects the UTS 2027 strategy and the Graduate Profile Framework, and
structure, content, delivery arrangements and assessment profile are appropriately designed to achieve the desired educational aims and learning outcomes.

4.11 Course accreditation and reaccreditation must be endorsed by all relevant faculty boards before consideration by the Courses Accreditation Committee (CAC) or the Higher Degree Research Committee (HDRC).

4.12 The course accreditation proposal is reviewed and endorsed by CAC or HDRC and submitted to Academic Board or the Executive Committee of Academic Board (ECAB) for approval in line with this policy, the procedure and the Delegations.

Stage 3: Course commencement or implementation

4.13 The third stage of the course approval and reaccreditation process is course commencement (for accredited new courses) or implementation (for reaccreditation of existing courses). The purpose of this stage is to ensure that:

all conditions of course accreditation or reaccreditation have been satisfied, and
necessary legislative, administrative and resource conditions for course commencement (for new courses) or course implementation (for reaccreditation) have been met before students are admitted.

4.14 Course commencement is approved by the Provost on advice from the Head, University Academic Programs Office (UAPO) in line with this policy and the procedure.

Accreditation period and extension of accreditation

4.15 All coursework courses and research degrees with more than one-third of coursework component (categorised as doctoral degree by research and coursework (DRC) and masters degree by research and coursework (MRC)) are normally accredited for a period of 5 years.

4.16 Course accreditation for postgraduate research award courses categorised as doctoral degree by research (DR) and masters degree (research) (MR) is normally given for an unlimited period. Review and consideration of continued offering of these research courses is the responsibility of the Graduate Research School.

4.17 Articulated and interlinked courses are normally approved and reaccredited together and are considered a set for course monitoring and review purposes.

4.18 If courses are accredited by external professional bodies, faculties should, where possible, request a period of UTS accreditation that enables them to prepare for internal and external reaccreditation at the same time in order to reduce the administrative burden.

4.19 Articulation arrangements usually have the same accreditation end date as the course they are related to and should be reaccredited at the same time as the course (refer Delegations).

4.20 An extension of accreditation period may be requested of Academic Board in exceptional circumstances, including where:

unforeseen events have prevented the faculty from offering/admitting students in the accredited course
unforeseen events have prevented the faculty from finalising the reaccreditation in the required timeframe
a major strategic issue has been identified and there is insufficient time to address the matter in the normal reaccreditation cycle.

4.21 The course planning request for the extension of accreditation is approved by the Provost on the recommendation of the CPC in line with the normal course accreditation approval process and the procedure.

4.22 Course accreditation for the extension of accreditation is approved by Academic Board or ECAB on the recommendation of the CAC or HDRC in line with the normal course accreditation approval process and the procedure (refer Delegations).

4.23 Extension of accreditation may be sought and granted only once within the accreditation period. This is normally granted for a period of up to 12 months and cannot exceed 24 months.

4.24 The extension of course accreditation cannot cause the overall period of accreditation to exceed 7 years.

Phasing out, discontinuation and suspension of intake

4.25 Courses may be phased out, discontinued or temporarily suspended in line with Rule 3.1.3 and the procedure.

4.26 Proposals for phasing out or discontinuation of a course must be endorsed by all relevant faculty boards before consideration by the CPC, CAC or HDRC.

4.27 The business case for phasing out or discontinuation is approved by the Provost on the recommendation of the CPC in line with the normal business case approval process.

4.28 Course accreditation for phasing out or discontinuation of a course is approved by Academic Board (refer Delegations) on the recommendation of the CAC or HDRC in line with the normal course accreditation approval process and the procedure.

4.29 Suspension of intake into a course may be allowed when a faculty:

wishes to stop admitting new students in a course flagged to be phased out, but university approval for phasing out has not yet been finalised, or
does not wish to admit new students to a course for a specific or indeterminate period of time, but wishes to maintain the course as ‘active’ so it can be offered again at a later stage.

4.30 Suspension of intake into a course is approved by the Provost on request from the dean.

Monitoring and review

4.31 The quality and viability of all award coursework courses is monitored using a set of key tracking measures against an agreed set of benchmarked indicators in order to support and enhance the course review and reaccreditation process.

4.32 The Teaching and Learning Committee annually reviews the performance of all coursework award courses based on course quality data and makes recommendations to Academic Board as appropriate on actions to improve course quality.

4.33 Course quality and viability data are used to inform decisions about whether a business case is required for the reaccreditation of existing coursework courses.

Courses with poor viability data usually require the submission of a business case and course accreditation (stages 1 and 2 of the course approval process outlined in this policy and the procedure).
Courses with satisfactory viability data usually only require the submission of course accreditation (stage 2 of the process outlined in this policy and the procedure).

Annual reporting

4.34 UAPO provides an annual report to Academic Board and the senior executive including:

new courses set to active in CASS
courses nearing the end of their accreditation period
courses that have been or are to be phased out or discontinued
courses into which intake has been suspended for a period of time.

5. Roles and responsibilities

5.1 Policy owner: The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) is responsible for the enforcement of and compliance with this policy, ensuring that its principles and statements are observed. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students) is also responsible for approval of any associated university-level procedures.

5.2 Policy contact: The Head, University Academic Programs Office is responsible for providing advice on the implementation of this policy and its procedure, and for ensuring the efficiency and quality of the systems that support the approval process.

5.3 Implementation and governance roles:

The Provost approves the business case (stage 1) and approves the course commencement stage for new courses. The Provost is also responsible for determining appropriate approval pathways, reaccreditation requirements, course commencement, implementation, requests for extension and suspension of intake in line with this policy and the procedure.

The Teaching and Learning Committee monitors course quality and makes recommendations to Academic Board on actions to improve course quality.

The Academic Board and the Executive Committee of Academic Board (where decisions are required outside Academic Board meeting times) approves the accreditation of proposed awards, reaccreditation of existing award courses, and the removal or phasing out of approved or existing award courses as recommended by the Courses Accreditation Committee.

The Executive Committee of Academic Board (ECAB) must report all approvals made on behalf of Academic Board to the next meeting of the board for noting.

The Higher Degree Research Committee (HDRC) endorses course accreditation for research courses and makes a recommendation to Academic Board or ECAB that course accreditation approval be granted for research courses that meet, or continue to meet, UTS’s educational requirements and standards for the appropriate level of award.

The Courses Accreditation Committee (CAC) endorses course accreditation for coursework courses and makes a recommendation to Academic Board or ECAB that course accreditation approval be granted for coursework courses that meet, or continue to meet, UTS’s educational requirements and standards for the appropriate level of award.

The Courses Planning Committee (CPC) endorses the business case for award courses and makes recommendations to the Provost for approval. It also makes recommendations to the Provost whether a business case is required for reaccreditation of existing coursework courses.

Deans ensure that courses offered by their faculty are developed and approved in compliance with the Student Rules, this policy and the procedure. Deans also submit business cases and course accreditation proposals to the relevant committees in line with this policy and the procedure.

Faculty boards endorse proposals for new courses, reaccreditation and phasing out and discontinuation of existing courses before submission to CAC for recommendation to Academic Board or ECAB for course accreditation approval.

6. Definitions

The following definitions apply for this policy and all associated procedures. These are in addition to the definitions outlined in Schedule 1, Student Rules. Definitions in the singular also include the plural meaning of the word.

Academic integrity is defined in the Academic Integrity Policy .

Approval means the formal processes (outlined in this policy and the procedure) of:

establishing a new award course
reaccrediting an existing award course
phasing out or discontinuing an existing award course, or
in limited circumstances, extending the accreditation period for an existing award course.

Articulated course means those linked via an articulation arrangement as outlined in the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.

Business case means the documentation submitted by faculties to seek in principle endorsement/approval for new courses and reaccreditation of existing courses.

Discontinuation means the end of an existing award course as approved by Academic Board. Discontinuation is a status in CASS referring to a course that is no longer offered to new students. No existing students may be admitted to the course.

Extension of course accreditation means the temporary extension of the accreditation period for an existing award course to enable more time for preparation and submission of reaccreditation documentation in line with this policy and the procedure.

Interlinked course means those courses that are or were connected (for example, stand-alone degrees and their combined degrees, bachelor degrees and their related bachelor honours degree). Courses may be formally interlinked with an articulation arrangement.

Phasing out means the gradual process of discontinuation via a process of Academic Board approved stages. Phasing out is a status of a course in CASS where Academic Board has approved that the course no longer be offered to new students, but that students currently admitted to the course can continue their studies in accordance with the existing course structure and requirements.

Reaccreditation means the reapproval of an existing award course in line with the provisions of this policy and the procedure.

Approval information

Policy contact	Head, University Academic Programs Office
Approval authority	Academic Board
Review date	2024
File number	UR18/2484
Superseded documents	Award Course Approval and Reaccreditation Policy 2011 (UR10/1182)

Version history

Version	Approved by	Approval date	Effective date	Sections modified
1.0	Academic Board (by flying minute)	21/11/2018	01/01/2019	New policy.
2.0	Academic Board (AB/19-1/7)	27/03/2019	18/04/2019	Multiple modifications to reflect development of new procedures.
2.1	Director, Governance Support Unit (Delegation 3.14.1)	24/04/2020	29/04/2020	Clarification to language and process relating to doctoral degree by research with a coursework component (DRC) and masters degree (research) with a coursework component (MRC).
2.2	Academic Board	28/07/2020	24/09/2020	Minor amendments to reference relevant publishing and fee information from the consolidation of the Publication of Official UTS Award Course and Fee Information Vice-Chancellor’s Directive into the procedures. Reference to Graduate Profile Framework.
2.3	Academic Board (AB/21-4/68)	29/09/2021	27/10/2021	Changes to the reaccreditation process to include academic course viability data, simplify terminology and clarify the reaccreditation process and requirements.
2.4	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	29/09/2022	01/11/2022	Minor change to reflect articulation arrangement terminology (changed from external articulation). Other minor updates.
2.5	Director, Governance Support Unit (Delegation 3.14.1)	01/02/2022	15/12/2022	Minor update to reflect requirements of the new Accessibility and Inclusion Policy.
2.6	Academic Board (AB/23-1/11)	22/03/2023	22/03/2023	Reset policy review date and agreement of policy currency.
2.7	Director, Governance Support Unit (Delegation 3.14.1)	25/05/2023	16/06/2023	Update to reflect title change of Course Name and Award Title Nomenclature Policy to Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy.
2.8	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	22/09/2023	06/10/2023	Amendments to reflect name change of Higher Degree Research Board to Higher Degree Research Committee and new Graduate Research School Board.
2.9	Director, Governance Support Unit (Delegation 3.14.1)	16/11/2023	12/12/2023	Changes to reflect the new Academic Integrity Policy.
2.10	Academic Board (AB/24-1/10)	27/03/2024	27/03/2024	Changes to statements on extension of accreditation periods.
2.11	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	20/06/2024	03/07/2024	Amendments to reflect new Education Portfolio.