Award Course Approval and Publication Procedure

1. Purpose

1.1 The Award Course Approval and Publication Procedure (the procedure) provides information on the approval, reaccreditation, changes to, phasing out, discontinuation and publishing of award courses offered by UTS. 

1.2 The procedure should be read in conjunction with the Award Course Approval Policy (the policy).

2. Scope

2.1 The scope of the policy applies for this procedure. Specifically, this procedure will address the approval processes for:

1. new award courses
2. the reaccreditation of existing award courses
3. the extension of accreditation for all award courses
4. the phasing out, discontinuation and suspension of intake for all award courses
5. changes to award courses that require university-level approval, and changes to award courses that require faculty-level approval
6. publication of award course information, including fees information.

3. Principles

3.1 The principles outlined in the policy apply for this procedure.

3.2 This procedure recognises 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 fee information for award courses (as outlined in Rule 4.1.4, Student Rules).

4. Procedure statements

Course approval and reaccreditation

4.1 The approval process described in this section applies to proposals for:

1. new award coursework and research courses resulting in the creation of new course codes on CASS, and
2. reaccreditation of existing award coursework and research courses.

Stages and approval pathways

4.2 Approval and reaccreditation is a 3-staged process, as outlined in table 4.2 (refer also the policy).

Table 4.2: Stages and approval pathways table

Stage	Stage title	Applicability	Approval pathway
1	Business case approval	For reaccreditation, a business case may not always be required.	Endorsed by the Courses Planning Committee (CPC) Approved by the Provost (as the Vice-Chancellor’s delegate)
2	Course accreditation approval	Where a course is to be offered in Australia to international students, CRICOS code application (for new courses) is required.	Endorsed by the Courses Accreditation Committee (CAC), or Higher Degree Research Committee (HDRC) Approved by Academic Board or the Executive Committee of Academic Board (ECAB) (refer Delegations)
3	Course commencement	For new courses	Endorsed by the Head, University Academic Programs Office (UAPO) Approved by the Provost
	Course implementation	For reaccreditation	Checked by the Senior Curriculum Services Manager, UAPO

Submission and approval processes overview

4.3 The internal approval processes in each faculty (including consideration by the faculty courses committee or equivalent, and approval by the faculty board) may run in parallel to the university course approval process.

4.4 Faculties may prepare and submit the business case and course accreditation simultaneously.

4.5 The business case must be approved by the Provost before the CAC or HDRC can submit the course accreditation proposal to Academic Board or ECAB.

Course approval and reaccreditation responsibilities

4.6 The dean is the sponsor of all new course or reaccreditation proposals. In conjunction with the proposer (refer statement 4.7), the dean is responsible for:

1. ensuring the proposal conforms with the policy, this procedure and all required university and faculty-level approval processes
2. ensuring that adequate financial and human resources are allocated to the development and submission of the course proposal
3. the course proposal and its implementation (including development, management, resourcing, risk management and quality assurance)
4. discussing the proposal with all the relevant stakeholders before submitting the business case and course accreditation to the relevant committees
5. submitting the business case and course accreditation proposals to the relevant committees
6. ensuring, where applicable, that approvals from all faculties or other stakeholders with an interest in the proposal have been obtained.

4.7 For each new course or reaccreditation proposal, the dean assigns a proposer. A proposer is normally an associate dean or a course director and is responsible for:

1. developing the course proposal
2. coordinating consultation with stakeholders concerned
3. initiating and completing the required course proposal documentation.

4.8 The sponsor or proposer may also nominate a project manager to assist in developing the proposal and completing the required documentation. The project manager does not have any accountability or responsibility in the course approval or reaccreditation process under the policy and this procedure.

4.9 The UAPO determines and publishes the timelines for submission of documentation for new course and reaccreditation proposals based on Academic Board and ECAB meeting dates as well as deadlines for entering data in CASS and CIS.

4.10 The UAPO provides guidance to faculties on approval pathways and timelines taking into consideration:

1. the specific course details (for example, coursework/research, undergraduate/postgraduate, delivered on campus/distance/online/offshore, brand new course/replacement course)
2. whether the proposal is for a new award course or a reaccreditation
3. the date from which faculties would like to begin taking course applications, and
4. the required date of reaccreditation.

4.11 The UAPO’s guidance to faculties also takes into consideration the following dates:

1. deadline for submission of information to UAC for inclusion in the undergraduate UAC Guide
2. government reporting timeframes
3. UTS Open Day and other major promotional events (for example, postgraduate information sessions)
4. deadline for entering data in CASS and CIS for inclusion in the first release of the UTS Handbook for the following year
5. open dates for applications
6. any deadline set by faculties for faculty-level approval (for example, external accreditation, faculty course committee and faculty board meeting dates).

Business case and reaccreditation requirements

4.12 A business case as outlined in the policy is required for all course proposals with the exception of:

1. new bachelor honours degrees to be offered onshore with no more than one-third of coursework component
2. new research degrees to be offered onshore with no more than one-third of coursework component
3. new coursework degrees to be offered onshore, designed as an addition to an existing set of courses. For example, an existing undergraduate degree being combined with the Bachelor of International Studies or Bachelor of Creative Intelligence and Innovation; or a new postgraduate degree being added to an existing suite of articulated courses.
4. replacement courses to be offered onshore resulting from the restructure of an existing course where the Provost has approved an alternate approval process more commensurate with the opportunities and risks associated with the proposal
5. reaccreditation of non-embedded honours offered onshore, if reaccredited separately from their interlinked courses
6. reaccreditation of a course, or set of interlinked courses, offered onshore with satisfactory viability data, unless otherwise advised by the Provost on the advice of the CPC.

4.13 The exceptions listed above should start the process at stage 2, course accreditation.

4.14 The CPC is responsible for determining whether the course (or set of interlinked courses) requires a business case for reaccreditation in line with the policy and this procedure.

4.15 Whether a course requires a business case for reaccreditation (as outlined in the policy) is determined based on:

1. the course category
2. whether the course is offered onshore or offshore
3. course viability data
4. whether significant changes to the course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation process
5. strategic considerations at university or faculty level.

4.16 Where the CPC recommends that a business case is not required for the reaccreditation process and the faculty subsequently advises that more extensive changes to the course will be submitted as part of the course reaccreditation process, the Provost may, depending on the nature of the proposed changes, review the CPC decision and may require a business case and/or additional information be submitted as part of the reaccreditation proposal.

Stage 1: Business case

4.17 The business case for course approval and reaccreditation should include:

1. market intelligence showing evidence of demand and competitive environment
2. pricing strategy (for new courses)
3. financial plan showing the estimated cost of the initial implementation (for new courses), estimated typical annual income and expenditure and estimated profit generated for the faculty as a result of offering the course
4. risk assessment report (for new courses)
5. project plan detailing how the proposals will be taken from development to market (for new courses)
6. details of course structure (course defining criteria, minimum academic and language proficiency requirements for admission, award course nomenclature details (refer Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy) and completion requirements)
7. evidence and outcome of consultation with all internal and external stakeholders with an interest in the proposal (refer statement 4.21).

4.18 Where changes to a course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, the following additional information must also be included in the business case:

1. details of the proposed changes
2. rationale for and impact of the proposed changes
3. details of transition arrangements for continuing students, where applicable.

4.19 The sponsor must ensure that all necessary consultation with internal stakeholders (including but not limited to members of the senior executive, faculties with an interest in the proposal, Graduate Research School, UAPO, Lifetime Learner Experience Unit (LLEU), UTS International, students and alumni) and external stakeholders (for example, professional accrediting body, industry advisory board, commercial partner) has been undertaken before submitting the business case.

4.20 Business cases for new course approval and for reaccreditation of existing courses are endorsed and approved as follows:

1. The dean, as sponsor, submits the business case to the CPC for endorsement.
2. The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the business case.
3. Where conditions are set by the CPC for business case approval, the proposer must provide evidence back to the CPC that these conditions have been met before the business case is submitted to the Provost for approval.
4. The Provost approves or rejects the business case (including the course name, award title, award abbreviation and criteria for levels of award where applicable), and may also approve whether the faculty can start promoting the course. In such cases an appropriate proviso may be required (for example, 'course planned for introduction and subject to final approval').

Stage 2: Course accreditation

4.21 The course accreditation proposal for course approval and reaccreditation should outline:

1. details of the course admissions requirements (including admissions criteria and language proficiency requirements) and inherent requirements essential for course progression and completion
2. details of the course structure (that is defining criteria, completion requirements)
3. course specific graduate profile as part of the Graduate Profile Framework (including Indigenous graduate attributes or course intended learning outcomes) (refer Our Graduate Attributes)
4. details of consultation with internal stakeholders (including but not limited to faculties with an interest in the proposal, Graduate Research School, UAPO, LLEU, UTS International, Student Services Unit (for accessibility requirements), students and alumni) and external stakeholders (for example, professional accrediting body and industry advisory board)
5. details of transition arrangement for continuing students where there are changes to an existing course, or where an existing course is being phased out
6. details of course transfer and articulation arrangements associated with the new course or proposed as part of the reaccreditation (including the number of students admitted under the articulation arrangements, where applicable)
7. details of faculty board approval for the new course or reaccreditation from all the faculty stakeholders.

4.22 Where changes to a course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, the details, rationale and impact of the proposed changes, as well as outcomes of consultation with all stakeholders in the proposal, must be included in addition to the information outlined in statement 4.21.

4.23 Course accreditation for new course approval and for reaccreditation of existing courses are endorsed and approved as follows:

1. The dean, as sponsor, submits course accreditation to both the faculty board and the CAC.
2. The faculty board endorses the course accreditation for submission by the dean to the CAC or HDRC, as appropriate.
3. If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal, approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.
4. The CAC or HDRC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the course accreditation proposal.
5. Where applicable, for new courses, the CAC also advises the Provost on whether the use of Advanced or Extension in the course name and/or award title is suitable for a particular course, in accordance with the Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy.
6. Where conditions are set by the CAC or HDRC for course accreditation approval, the proposer must provide evidence to the CAC or HDRC that these have been met before the course accreditation proposal is submitted to Academic Board for approval (refer Delegations).
7. Academic Board approves or rejects the course accreditation proposals.
8. If Academic Board approves the course accreditation, the proposal may proceed to the CRICOS code application stage as noted in the policy. If the course is not to be offered in Australia to international students, the proposal can proceed directly to the course commencement stage.

4.24 The information required for CRICOS code application is determined by the Tertiary Education Qualification Standards Agency (TEQSA).

4.25 Where required, the UAPO completes the CRICOS code application. The dean is responsible for submission of the application to UTS International.

4.26 UTS International checks and lodges the application with TEQSA and communicates the CRICOS code to the UAPO upon issuance. UAPO records the CRICOS code in CASS.

Stage 3: Course commencement (new courses) or implementation (existing courses)

4.27 The course commencement stage acts as a checklist for the faculty and UAPO to ensure that all necessary legislative, administrative and resource conditions (if any) have been met before offers are made and students are admitted to the course. Course commencement should include confirmation that:

1. all approvals have been granted
2. all conditions set for approval by the university courses committee have been satisfied
3. new curriculum data has been recorded and validated in CASS
4. existing curriculum data, where applicable, has been amended in CASS and validated
5. compulsory course information has been recorded in CIS, ready for publication in the UTS Handbook and on the public website
6. transition arrangements and communication plans for existing students, where applicable, are in place and have been discussed with the stakeholders.

4.28 Course commencement for new courses is approved as follows:

1. The dean or their nominee submits the course commencement to the Head, UAPO.
2. When satisfied that all necessary requirements have been met, the Head, UAPO recommends to the Provost that the course be made active in CASS so that students can be admitted into the new course.
3. The Provost approves or rejects the course commencement.
4. On approval by the Provost, the UAPO activates the course in CASS.

4.29 The course implementation stage acts as a checklist for the UAPO to ensure that all conditions set for approval by Academic Board have been satisfied and, where changes to the course are proposed as part of the reaccreditation, that changes to curriculum data in CASS have been validated.

4.30 Course implementation of reaccreditation is approved as follows:

1. The senior curriculum services coordinator, UAPO reviews the information and confirms that all conditions set for approval by Academic Board have been satisfied.
2. On confirmation, the business analyst, UAPO checks that changes to curriculum data have been validated in CASS and activates the changes in CASS where applicable.

Extension of accreditation

4.31 The policy outlines the accreditation period for all coursework courses and provides for extension of course accreditation in exceptional circumstances.

4.32 Requests for an extension of accreditation period in exceptional circumstances should include:

1. the proposed duration of the extension, noting that accreditation is approved until the end of an academic year
2. the course quality and viability data for the courses for which the extension of accreditation period applies
3. whether the extension should also apply to all active articulation arrangements associated with the course
4. a description of the exceptional circumstances relevant to the request for extension of accreditation period, and
5. the reaccreditation action plan and timeline.

4.33 Requests for an extension of accreditation period are approved as follows:

1. The dean or associate dean (teaching and learning) submits the proposal to the CPC and CAC or HDRC, as appropriate.
2. The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the course planning request for extension of accreditation.
3. The Provost approves or rejects the course planning request for extension.
4. Following approval of the course planning request, the CAC or HDRC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the requested extension of course accreditation and makes a recommendation to Academic Board.
5. Academic Board approves or rejects the request for extension of accreditation (refer Delegations).
6. On approval of the extension by Academic Board, the UAPO updates the course record and, where applicable, the articulation arrangement records in CASS to reflect the new accreditation end date.

Phasing out, discontinuation and suspension of intake into courses

Stages and approval pathways

4.34 The approval process for phasing out or discontinuation is a 3-staged process as outlined in table 4.34.

Table 4.34: Stages and approval pathways

Stage	Stage title and applicability	Approval pathway
1	Business case approval	Endorsed by the CPC Approved by the Provost
2	Course accreditation approval	Endorsed by the CAC or HDRC Approved by Academic Board or ECAB (refer Delegations)
3	Implementation (of cessation)	Checked by the senior curriculum services coordinator, UAPO Approved by the Provost

4.35 The internal approval processes in each faculty (including consideration by the faculty courses committee or equivalent and approval by faculty board) shall be completed before submitting a business case for phasing out or discontinuation to the CPC and before submitting the course accreditation to the CAC or HDRC.

4.36 The business case must be approved by the Provost before course accreditation approval can be recommended to Academic Board or ECAB.

4.37 In taking the decision to phase out or discontinue a course, the faculty should assess the impact of the decision on:

1. continuing students
2. international applicants
3. graduates of the course
4. other faculty stakeholders in the course (for example, combined courses, teaching by another faculty), and/or
5. course transfer and articulation arrangements.

4.38 Supporting documentation for phasing out or discontinuation of a course must meet the requirements set in Rule 3.6.

4.39 In addition to the requirements of Rule 3.6, supporting documentation for phasing out and discontinuation should include:

1. rationale for phasing out or discontinuing the course
2. teaching session and year of last intake of new students into the course
3. teaching session and year from which the course will be phased out
4. number of continuing domestic and international students currently admitted in the course
5. number of pending and accepted offers to domestic and international students
6. transition arrangements for continuing students
7. evidence of consultation with all relevant stakeholders
8. details of faculty board approval for the phasing out or discontinuation from all faculty and internal stakeholders in the course.

4.40 Proposals for phasing out or discontinuation of a course are approved as follows:

1. The dean (as sponsor) submits the phasing out or discontinuation business case and course accreditation proposal to the faculty board.
2. The faculty board endorses the phasing out or discontinuation business case and course accreditation for submission by the dean to the CPC and the CAC or HDRC. If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal, approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.
3. The CPC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the business case for phasing out or discontinuation and makes a recommendation to the Provost.
4. The Provost approves or rejects the phasing out or discontinuation business case.
5. Where the Provost approves the business case, the course accreditation proposal is submitted to the CAC or HDRC.
6. The CAC or HDRC endorses (with or without conditions) or rejects the course accreditation for phasing out or discontinuation and makes a recommendation to Academic Board.
7. Academic Board approves or rejects the course accreditation proposal for phasing out or discontinuation (refer Delegations) as follows:
   • where there are no students currently admitted to the course, Academic Board approves immediate discontinuation of the course
   • where students are still admitted to the course, Academic Board approves phasing out of the course until all admitted students have withdrawn, transferred to another course or graduated.
8. On approval by Academic Board, the business analyst, UAPO updates the course status in CASS to either ‘phasing out’ or ‘discontinued’.

4.41 The UAPO monitors the report on phasing out courses and, upon confirmation from the faculty that until all remaining students have either withdrawn, transferred to another course or graduated, sets up the course as discontinued in CASS.

Suspension of intake into a course process

4.42 Requests for the suspension of intake should include:

1. the intake/s for which the suspension is requested
2. the rationale for the suspension
3. how existing applications/offers into the course will be managed
4. course quality and viability data
5. stakeholders consultation outcome
6. whether the course should continue to be published in the UTS Handbook and/or at Find a course.

4.43 Requests for suspension of intake are approved as follows:

1. The dean submits the proposal to the Provost.
2. The Provost approves or rejects the suspension of intake request for either a specific or indeterminate period of time.

4.44 Suspension of intake results in the course remaining active in CASS without availability. The course is not, however, included in UTS’s official course publications.

Changes to award courses

Changes approved at faculty level

4.45 In accordance with Rule 3.6.3, faculties can approve changes to approved, accredited and commenced courses. Statement 4.50 covers changes that require university-level approval.

4.46 Faculty approval processes for changes to award courses and study packages are published at Faculty approval processes (SharePoint). These processes are developed and endorsed by faculty boards and approved by Academic Board. They must be reviewed by Academic Board at least every 5 years.

4.47 Faculty processes require an impact assessment and risk analysis of proposed course changes including:

1. resourcing and capability to deliver the changed course, including impact on staffing
2. arrangements for and quality of teaching and learning
3. compliance with legal and external requirements (for example, AQF, ESOS Act)
4. compliance with UTS rules, delegations and policy
5. effectiveness and practicality of administration (for example, timetabling)
6. requirements and interests of internal and external stakeholders (for example, faculty stakeholders, institutions with articulation arrangements)
7. requirements and interests of students
8. course monitoring process and key performance indicators
9. change management strategies, including detailed transition arrangements for students (required under Rules 3.6.4 and 3.6.5), allowing sufficient notification to students and stakeholders before implementation, redeployment of staffing resource and liaison with LLEU.

4.48 Faculty processes must ensure that proper consultation with all relevant parties is conducted, including but not limited to:

1. faculty staff (academic and professional) who are or may be impacted by the proposed changes
2. other university units (including UAPO, LLEU, UTS International, SSU, Library, Information Technology Unit, Property Unit), and external stakeholders (particularly where there are articulation arrangements attached to the course (for example, Insearch Limited) or accreditation issues and requirements).

4.49 Where another faculty has an interest in the course to which changes are proposed, endorsement from that faculty must be sought as part of the approval process as follows:

1. For combined degrees: A faculty board resolution supporting the responsible faculty’s proposal to change the course (possibly subject to changes and/or amendments to minimise the impact of the proposal). If scheduling of faculty board meetings does not allow timely consideration and advice on the proposal approval can be sought in line with section 5 (iii), Standing Orders for Faculty Boards.
2. For non-combined degrees: A memo from the dean or associate dean (teaching and learning) acknowledging that the impact of the course proposal on the faculty’s activities has been discussed and assessed and, where relevant, action has been and/or will be taken to manage the impact.

4.50 Changes requiring university-level approval are outlined in table 4.50.

Table 4.50: Changes requiring university-level approval

Change	Approval process
Course admissions requirements	Approved in line with Rule 3.6, the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy and the Admissions Procedure
Course and award nomenclature	Approved in line with the Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy
Course structure deemed by the Provost to warrant consideration and approval at university-level	In some instances, the impact of the changes on other academic and administrative units and on students may be deemed by the Provost to warrant consideration and approval at university-level. In these instances, the Provost determines, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate process and level of documentation required to approve the changes to the course structure.
Total number of credit points in a course	The level of documentation and approval pathway for changes to the total number of credit points of an existing course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Standard duration of a course	The level of documentation and approval pathway for changes to the standard duration of an existing course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Liability category of a course (except addition or removal of CSP liability)	The liability category refers to the category of students admissible in a course (for example, domestic, international, postgraduate, undergraduate). Proposals to change (add/remove) liability categories of a course are submitted via the online curriculum approval process (OCAP) system. Normally, proposals are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of these changes via a report from CAC. Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be submitted to the CAC or HDRC for consideration. The CAC or HDRC makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation. Where changes to a course liability category result in changes to the course admissions selection criteria and/or English language proficiency requirements, these are approved in line with Rule 3.6, the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy and the Admissions Procedure.
Study mode and attendance mode of the course	Study mode and attendance mode refers to how the course is typically delivered (for example, weekly on campus, standard mode, block on campus, distance, online). Proposals to change (add/remove) study mode and/or attendance modes against a course are submitted using the relevant template in OCAP. Normally, proposals to change study mode or attendance mode of a course are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of the changes via a report from CAC or HDRC. Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be sent to the CAC or HDRC for consideration. The CAC or HDRC makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation.
Online versions via OPM of existing courses	Proposals to offer online versions via OPM of an existing UTS course are submitted using the relevant template in OCAP. Course accreditation is endorsed and approved in line with statement 4.23 of this procedure.
Course location	Changes to the location of a course refers to an instance where a new location for course delivery is added, an existing location is deleted or a location unused for the past 4 sessions is reactivated. Proposals are submitted using the relevant template in the OCAP system. Normally, proposals to change the location of a course are endorsed by the CPC and approved by the Provost. Academic Board is notified of the changes via a report from CAC. Where CPC assesses that the changes may have an impact on the teaching and learning aspects of the course, a proposal must be sent to the CAC or HDRC for consideration. The CAC or HDRC makes a recommendation to Academic Board for approval as per the process for new course accreditation.
Partner or partnership arrangement of a course	The level of documentation and approval pathway required for changes to the partner (for example, addition of a new partner, withdrawal of existing partner) or partnership arrangement for a course is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Provost.
Funding cluster and/or ASCED code	Changes to the funding cluster or ASCED code(s) of a course are approved by the Provost (refer Change a course (Staff Connect)). Proposals are submitted by the dean using the relevant template in OCAP.

Implementation of course changes

4.51 All approved course changes (faculty or university-level approval) must be implemented in CASS in time for admission of new students or re-enrolment of existing students.

4.52 The UAPO will require supporting documentation and evidence of approval by the relevant authority before the changes can be effected in CASS for implementation.

4.53 The Head, UAPO may refer any concerns over the proposed changes to the Provost for advice on the need for further consideration and (where determined by the Provost) approval at university level.

Publishing and promoting award course information

4.54 UTS award course information comprises CASS’s high-level curriculum data and CIS’s descriptive text-based data.

4.55 The data in CASS and CIS must be used when publishing course information (for example, in the UTS Handbook, Find a course, faculty course guides, subject outlines). This also applies where UTS provides information to a third party (for example, the Universities Admissions Centre (UAC), the Good Universities Guide, the Online Program Management partner).

4.56 Information about all active courses must be published in the UTS Handbook, unless otherwise approved by the Provost.

4.57 Promotion of award courses with a status of ‘draft’ in CASS may be approved by the Provost with an appropriate proviso where required (for example, 'course planned for introduction and subject to final approval').

Table 4.57: Promotion of award courses

Approval stage	Promotion to domestic students	Promotion to international students
Business case and course name and award title approved by the Provost	Limited to domestic UAC publications	No (CRICOS code required as per ESOS legislation)
Business case and course name and award title approved by the Provost. Course accreditation recommended to Academic Board for approval.	Limited to domestic UAC publications	No (CRICOS code required as per ESOS legislation)
Business case and course name and award title approved by the Provost. Course accreditation approved by Academic Board.	Limited to domestic UAC publications and information sessions for domestic applicants and subject to restrictions set by the Provost where applicable	No, where the course is to be offered to international students who require a visa to study in Australia and a CRICOS code is therefore required (as per ESOS legislation). Yes, where the course is to be offered to international students who do not require a visa to study in Australia and a CRICOS code is therefore NOT required (as per ESOS legislation), for example, courses offered fully online.
Business case and course name and award title approved by the Provost. Course accreditation approved by Academic Board. CRICOS code issued.	Yes, subject to restrictions set by the Provost where applicable	Yes, subject to restrictions set by the Provost where applicable
Business case and course name and award title approved by the Provost. Course accreditation approved by Academic Board. CRICOS code issued. Course commencement approved by Provost.	Publication/promotion without restrictions	Publication/promotion without restrictions

4.58 Requests for promotion of award courses with a status of ‘draft’ in CASS should include:

1. approval status of the courses (for example, business case approval granted, course accreditation pending Academic Board approval, CRICOS code pending)
2. promotional materials and activities for which approval is sought (for example, UAC Guide, postgraduate information session)
3. where a CRICOS code is required but has not yet been issued, a statement that the faculty will ensure that the materials will be clearly labelled for and distributed to prospective/current domestic students only and that the promotional activities will not involve any prospective/current international students.

Course fee information

4.59 Fees and payment: Understanding fees is the primary and authoritative source of official fee information for UTS courses (Rule 4.1.4).

4.60 Fees and payment: Understanding fees must be used whenever course fee information is published. This also applies where UTS provides fee information to a third party.

4.61 The Director, Student Administration must approve the publication of tuition (and other/related fees) in any other form (including elsewhere on the uts.edu.au domain).

5. Roles and responsibilities

5.1 Procedure owner: The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students), in line with the policy, is responsible for the approval, enforcement of and compliance with this procedure.

5.2 Procedure contact: The Head, University Academic Programs Office, in line with the policy, is responsible for providing advice on the implementation of this procedure.

The Director, Student Administration is responsible for the accuracy and currency of fee information published on the fees and payment section of the UTS website.

5.3 Implementation and governance roles: Implementation and governance roles are outlined in the policy.

6. Definitions

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

Articulation arrangement is defined in the Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.

Core subject means a subject that is compulsory in a specified course or sub-structure. Whether a subject is a core subject is dependent on the course or sub-structure in which it resides, so that a subject which is core in one course may be available as an option or elective in another (refer also UTS Handbook: Core subjects).

Curriculum Information System (CIS) is the system that holds the descriptive text-based curriculum data (for example, course description, subject outlines). It is the authoritative source of UTS award course information for publishing purposes. Faculties are responsible for entering and updating the course information in CIS, while the UAPO is responsible for developing and supporting the system.

Curriculum and Student System (CASS) is the storage system for the high-level curriculum data collected and approved during the course approval or reaccreditation approval process. Faculties are responsible for providing accurate and up-to-date curriculum data to UAPO, who, in turn, is responsible for entering and maintaining the currency and integrity of the data in the system. Course information, student administration, course management and review are based on the curriculum data held in CASS.

Distance refers to the mode of attendance of a course where there is no face-to-face teaching and where lesson materials, assignments, etc. are delivered to the student electronically, online and/or by mail, and any associated attendance at the institution is of an incidental, irregular, special or voluntary nature.

Faculty stakeholder means a faculty has an interest in a course where (but not limited to):

• the course (existing or proposed) is a combined course
• a faculty owns subjects offered as core subjects or study packages within a major/sub-major/stream in a course owned by another faculty
• a faculty teaches subjects offered as core in a course owned by another faculty
• faculties offer courses or study packages in areas of studies that may overlap (for example, some areas of communication and design, some areas of science and health, some areas of education and management).

Inherent requirement is an essential requirement for a course as defined in Schedule 1, Student Rules.

Online refers to the mode of delivery of a course where the course is delivered fully online.

Online curriculum approval process (OCAP) system is the system that supports the implementation of this procedure. The UAPO is responsible for the development and support of the OCAP system. The OCAP system is used to collect the information required for submission of course proposals to the relevant authority for endorsement/approval at faculty and university level.

Proposer means an academic staff member appointed by the dean to develop and progress the new course approval, reaccreditation or change to an existing course.

Sponsor means the dean, who acts as a sponsor for all new courses in their faculty.

Subject outline is the official document provided to students as defined in Schedule 1, Student Rules.

Suspension of intake means the temporary pausing of a course, resulting in a pause in admission of new students as approved by Academic Board in line with this procedure.

Tuition fees are published on the Fees and payment section of the UTS website, which is maintained by LLEU. It includes (but is not limited to):

• domestic student tuition fees and international student tuition fees
• subject-based fees for domestic Commonwealth supported students (CSP)
• subject-based fees for domestic non-award and non-CSP students.

Approval information

Procedure contact	Head, University Academic Programs Office
Approval authority	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)
Review date	2024
File number	UR19/1044
Superseded documents	Award Course Approval and Reaccreditation Procedures 2011 (UR10/1182)        Publication of Official UTS Award Course and Fee Information Vice-Chancellor’s Directive 2006 (UR06/712.

Version history

Version	Approved by	Approval date	Effective date	Sections modified
1.0	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	11/04/2019	18/04/2019	New procedures.
1.1	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	21/11/2019	28/11/2019	Clarification of approval steps for courses offered online via the OPM and provision of definitions.
1.2	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	09/09/2020	24/09/2020	Procedures amended to take in relevant publishing and fee information from rescinded Publication of Official UTS Award Course and Fee Information Vice-Chancellor’s Directive; streamlined approval process for OPM courses; and reference to Graduate Profile Framework.
1.3	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	19/11/2020	24/03/2021	Amendment to change UTS Insearch to Insearch Limited.
1.4	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	13/05/2021	02/06/2021	Update to include a definition of ‘core subjects’ following review of the new Timetabling Policy.
1.5	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	30/09/2021	27/10/2021	Updated to reflect inherent requirements clarification and changes to the reaccreditation process to include academic course viability data, simplify terminology and clarify the reaccreditation process and requirements. Title changes under Fit for 2027 applied.
1.6	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.
1.7	Director, Governance Support Unit (Delegation 3.14.1)	01/12/2022        19/12/2022	22/12/2022	Minor updates to reflect the new Accessibility and Inclusion Policy and new process related to the approval of changes to courses (via OCAP).
1.8	Academic Board (AB/23-1/11)	22/03/2023	22/03/2023	Reset procedure review date and agreement of procedure currency.
	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	05/04/2023	19/04/2023	Amendments to reflect new position of Director, Student Administration in the Lifetime Learner Experience Unit.
1.9	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.
1.10	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	05/09/2023	05/09/2023	Changes to reflect updates to CASS terminology and status.
1.11	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.
1.12	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education and Students)	31/01/2024	07/02/2024	Amendments to the approval requirements for courses offered online via OPM. Amendments to the approval process for changes to the liability category of a course. Changes to provisions for extension of accreditation. Clarification of requirements for early publication of courses.
1.13	Deputy Director, Corporate Governance (Delegation 3.14.2)	20/06/2024	03/07/2024	Amendments to reflect new Education Portfolio.

References

Admissions and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy

Admissions Procedure

Award Course Approval Policy

Award Course Nomenclature and Issuance Policy

Delegations

Faculty approval processes (SharePoint)

Our Graduate Attributes: Graduate Profile Framework

Standing Orders for Faculty Boards

Student Rules: Rule 3.6 and Rule 4.1.4

Universities Admissions Centre (UAC)