Enabling education programs in Australia assist students, who would otherwise have been excluded from higher education, to transition into undergraduate study. These programs emerged independently in response to the needs of individual universities and the varying cohorts of students they serve. The exclusion of these programs from the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) has meant they remain unregulated, with no national framework for standards. The development of academic standards is a dynamic, consensus driven process, and benchmarking provides a method through which academics from across institutions can work in partnership to reach shared understandings and improve and align practices. This practice report outlines the results of the first comprehensive cross-institutional benchmarking project involving nine Australian universities and demonstrates there is shared understanding of the standards of enabling programs between institutions. These findings will contribute to the establishment of national standards for enabling programs in Australia.

Cross institutional benchmarking provides the opportunity to ensure comparability of standards by comparing learning outcomes and assessment practices, and acts as a catalyst for change and improved practice. The comparability of standards is crucial for the transparency and portability of qualifications as well as the assurance of quality student learning outcomes. In Australia there are 48 enabling programmes which provide non-award preparatory study for students who would otherwise be excluded from higher education. Given the diversity of programmes and offerings, this pilot study investigated whether it was possible to establish common learning outcomes and standards across three regional Australian enabling programmes that could set the stage for a national benchmarking framework. Three Australian enabling programmes benchmarked their learning outcomes, curriculum and assessment practices in three subjects: study skills preparation, academic communication and mathematics. The findings clearly indicated that despite differences in offerings and programme structure, there were common learning outcomes and standards, the assessments and assessment practices were comparable and rigorous, and that best practice could be shared and adapted to the benefit of students, staff and institutions.