TASC course accreditation criteria.

  • The proposed course has a clearly identifiable rationale that includes consideration of strategic need, demand and coherence together with evidence of appropriate consultation with stakeholders.
  • Brief statements of rationale will be included in the course documentation.
  • Additional information such as evidence of demand, names and contact details of stakeholders consulted and analysis of data, will be presented in the application accompanying the course documentation.

2.a General coherence

The proposed course:

  • must have educational aims and learning outcomes appropriate for students in the senior secondary phase of education in Tasmania
  • must be at least at the equivalent of the types of competencies characteristic of Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level I (see more information about AQF levels)
  • has a balance of learning of both domain-specific and generic skills and knowledge
  • meets TASC’s specifications document (if applicable)
  • aligns with the Tasmanian Curriculum Framework for Years 11 and 12.

2.b Internal coherence

  • There is clarity regarding what content is compulsory, and what (if any) is optional. Language used reflects these requirements. For example – ┬ámust or will, not should or could).
  • If applicable, the amount of optional content. For example, choice between units/topics is limited. Options allow for some specialisation, but there is a significant core of common content.
  • There is clarity regarding the sequence for delivery of content. For example, notations to say if the order in which content listed in the document reflects compulsory or suggested delivery sequencing.
  • There is a clear match between the stated Learning Outcomes, Content and Criteria/Standards.

Note: while some Learning Outcomes may be aspirational they should be limited and clearly labelled as being aspirational. There must be a clear match between the Outcomes and the Criteria/Standards.

2.c Coherence with other courses

  • If applicable, there are clear linkages between a Level 3 or 4 course and a foundation course at a lower level (or other specified TASC accredited pathway courses).

Note: a foundation course is not a simplified or easier version of a more complex course. It has its own distinctive features such as content, standards and criteria but prepares students who wish to study at a higher level in a similar learning area.

Does the proposed course duplicate, by titles or coverage:

  • other TASC senior secondary accredited courses
  • nationally accredited VET courses?

Overlap between VET and a proposed course

  • A course must identify any potential overlap between the content (skills, knowledge, competencies, learning outcomes) of the course and the skills, knowledge required in competencies of training packages.
  • Where a proposed course has content that appears to be the same as that in a training package but is intended to be different, the course must explain this difference.
  • A proposed course that includes content found in competencies in VET training packages may be accredited where TASC considers the requirements of its delivery as VET to Tasmanian senior secondary students are insufficiently relevant to the achievement of the intended outcomes. For example, reading and writing skills at Australian Core Skills Framework levels 1-3 are not clearly and distinctly different across everyday adult contexts, including work, to the extent that assessment requires current industry competence.
  • In accrediting a course with content found in competencies in VET training packages, TASC will decide the support (course requirements and quality assurance) for relevant recognition of prior learning, credit transfer or articulation.

There is clarity regarding any prescribed assessment instruments and work requirements.

  • The standards are expressed in clear, unambiguous language. The standards must clearly describe features/characteristics of the evidence of student work required by the standard.
  • (If applicable the standards are comparable with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), collaborative curriculum framework for languages

(CCAFFL) or VET standards in regard to their level of complexity and wording.

  • The degree of difficulty/complexity of the standards and the range of criteria are comparable with those in accredited courses in the same/similar learning area and level of complexity/size value.
  • The names used in courses and for results (awards) must be simple, plain and readily understandable.
  • The names used for awards/title must be consistent with current TASC practice.
  • The language used to describe the course, assessment and standards is simple, plain and readily understandable.
  • The methods of delivering the proposed course are likely to achieve the purposes, aims and learning outcomes of the course.
  • Details should be provided of any critical delivery methodology/methodologies necessary to achieve the outcomes of the course. It should not mandate delivery methods unless they are necessary to achieve the outcomes of the course.
  • If applicable, any limitations to access based on age, gender, employment, cultural, social or educational background or other requirements are explicit, clearly stated and justified.

The assessment processes to be used to determine whether a student has achieved the learning outcomes of the course are of standard sufficient to deliver:

  • a match between the standards for achievement specified in the course and the standards demonstrated by students
  • a level of comparability of results/awards essentially the same as for all other TASC accredited courses
  • community confidence in the integrity and meaning of results.

You are encouraged to recommend a quality assurance model. For Level 3 and Level 4 courses, drafted suggestions for the external assessment specifications may be developed and submitted with the accreditation submission. The final decision regarding course characteristics, assessment processes and quality assurance rests with TASC.

Detail and describe what, if any, special requirements there are for providers of the course. For example, special equipment or resources.

  • List requirements for TASC, such as quality assurance and external assessment.
  • The proposed course must identify course evaluation processes, including a mechanism for review during the first year of delivery.
  • Describe the level of complexity and size value of the course.
  • Ensure that the amount of content/assessment regime matches the size value indicated.
  • Ensure the nature/aim/purpose of the course, its content, learning outcomes and assessment standards matches the characteristics of the learning at this level of complexity.

TASC will formally assign a size value and level of complexity to the course.

List the qualifications (including award types) to be conferred on successful completion of the course.