Introduction

1.1 As of 2022, Australia’s school education system was made up of 9,614 schools, attended by four million students, and staffed by 307,228 teaching staff (full time equivalent, including principals).⁷ There were also 90,028 prospective teachers enrolled in initial teacher education (ITE) courses.⁸

1.2 The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited (AITSL, or the company) was established in 2010 to lead the promotion of excellence in teaching and school leadership on behalf of the Australian Government and state and territory governments, with an initial focus on national standards and professional development resources.⁹

1.3 As of December 2023, AITSL is responsible for administering 10 national standards and frameworks, which inform teacher regulation, professional development and career pathways, codify agreed common approaches to regulation between states and territories, and provide assistance and support for teachers and school leaders in areas of identified need.¹⁰ In 2022–23, AITSL had 81 employees (not including board directors), and received $17.1 million in revenue, including $10.3 million from the Australian Government (Table 1.1).

The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

Establishment and governance

1.4 AITSL is a Commonwealth company. The Board of Directors (the AITSL Board) is the accountable authority. The Constitution of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd (the AITSL Constitution) provides that the education minister appoints between three and 11 company directors, who together make up the AITSL Board. The Board ‘has the final responsibility for the successful operations of the Company’, and is accountable to the minister as the representative of the sole member of the company. The AITSL Board delegates authority over the day-to-day management of AITSL to the Chief Executive.

1.5 As a Commonwealth company, AITSL is subject to Chapter 3 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), which sets out public sector accountability requirements with which it must comply.¹¹ The company is also a registered charity under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012. Its obligations under this Act have not been considered by this audit.

1.6 The AITSL Constitution details its purpose (see Box 1).

Source: Constitution of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd [Internet], October 2019, available from https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/29cb3ff0-38af-e811-a961-000d3ad24182/documents/ [accessed 18 January 2024].

Funding arrangements

1.7 National school funding and policy arrangements rely on a federated system. States and territories retain constitutional responsibility for the provision of schooling to the children in their jurisdiction. The Australian Government provides funding to schools and is involved in setting national policies through national and bilateral funding agreements with states and territories.¹²

1.8 AITSL is funded primarily by the Australian Government via two grant agreements administered by the Department of Education: Grant Agreement — Core Funding, and Grant Agreement — Projects. The current grant agreements expire on 30 June 2027. Core funding is intended to cover operational costs and overheads, but may be redistributed to projects, while project funding is to be used for specified project costs only.

1.9 In addition to funding provided under the grant agreements, AITSL receives income from:

• the Australian Government and state and territory governments via the Education Ministers Meeting, for collectively commissioned work;
• contracts with Australian or overseas entities, such as work completed for individual jurisdictions via their education departments; and
• services to individuals via the Teacher Migration Services and Support (TMSS; formerly Assessment for Migration) team and 360° Reflection Tool for school leaders.

1.10 Income for the three most recent financial years is summarised in Table 1.1 below.¹³

Table 1.1: Revenue by source, 2020–21 to 2022–23 ($)

Note a: Separate core and project grants commenced in 2021–22. The figure provided for 2020–21 represents total Grant Agreement funding.

Source: AITSL documents.

National professional standards and frameworks for teachers

Current arrangements

1.11 As of December 2023, responsibility for teacher registration and ITE program accreditation lies with states and territories.¹⁴ Where agreed by education ministers, national consistency in language, registration or accreditation requirements and approaches, professional development, and mutual recognition is guided via 10 national standards and frameworks administered by AITSL (Table 1.2 below). They include:

• standards, which inform regulation, professional development and career pathways;
• frameworks, which provide an agreed common approach; and
• charters and guidelines, which are optional, and provide assistance or support in areas of identified need.

1.12 The 10 national standards and frameworks intersect as outlined in Figure 1.1 below.

Table 1.2: National standards and frameworks, as of December 2023

Note a: In addition to the four career stages in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (Graduate; Proficient; Highly Accomplished; and Lead), there are two additional stages: initial teacher education (before registration) as dealt with by the Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures; and school leader, as dealt with in the Australian Professional Standard for Principals and the Leadership Profiles.

Note b: The teacher regulatory authorities (TRAs) are the: New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA); ACT Teacher Quality Institute (TQI); Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT); Queensland College of Teachers (QCT); NT Teacher Registration Board; WA Teacher Registration Board; SA Teachers Registration Board; and Tasmanian Teachers Registration Board. See AITSL, Find your local regulatory authority [Internet], available from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/find-your-local-regulatory-authority [accessed 28 September 2023].

Note c: In addition to these Standards and Procedures, providers are also required to be registered by the national higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and (where applicable) the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000.

Source: ANAO, summarised from AITSL, National Frameworks [Internet], available from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/about-aitsl/national-frameworks [accessed 19 March 2024].

Figure 1.1: Relationships between national standards and frameworks

Source: ANAO, summarised from AITSL, National Frameworks [Internet], available from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/about-aitsl/national-frameworks [accessed 11 March 2024].

Implementation environment

1.13 State and territory education ministers do not have power to direct AITSL. Under the AITSL Constitution, this role is reserved for the Australian Government Education Minister, as the representative of the sole member of the company. As responsibility for teacher registration and ITE program accreditation lies with states and territories, AITSL is reliant on state and territory cooperation to undertake its work (Figure 1.2 below). Decision-making primarily takes place via:

• the Education Ministers Meeting, made up of Australian, state and territory government ministers responsible for education;
• the Australian Education Senior Officials Committee (AESOC), the primary subcommittee of senior officials supporting the Education Ministers Meeting; and
• the standing working groups of the AESOC: Schools Policy Group, with responsibility for reporting to and providing high-level strategic policy advice on all school education components of the Education Ministers Meeting agenda; and the Early Childhood Policy Group, with the equivalent responsibility for early childhood education and care matters.

Figure 1.2: National standards and frameworks decision-making

Source: ANAO, based on AITSL documents.

1.14 National standards and frameworks are implemented and supported by:

• state and territory teacher regulatory authorities (TRAs), which have responsibility for teacher registration and ITE program accreditation;
• ITE providers, which have responsibility for ITE program design and delivery, including assessment of prospective teachers via Teaching Performance Assessments;
• employers, including early childhood education providers, state government education departments, Catholic and independent school systems, and individual independent schools, which have responsibility for negotiating and setting employment conditions;
• member-based stakeholder bodies¹⁵;
• school leaders, who are responsible for teacher induction, supervision, and performance evaluation; and
• individual teachers, who are responsible for meeting the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers as a condition of registration, and may have supervisory responsibilities and adhere to other national policies as relevant to their career stage and goals (for example, highly accomplished and lead teachers).

1.15 Revising or introducing new national standards and frameworks relies on agreement from education ministers, as well as consideration of, and consultation with, others involved in implementation.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.16 AITSL was established ‘to provide national leadership for the Commonwealth, state and territory governments in promoting excellence in the profession of teaching and school leadership’.¹⁶ As of December 2023, AITSL is responsible for administering 10 national standards and frameworks, which inform the regulation, professional development and career pathways of the teaching profession.¹⁷

1.17 This audit provides assurance to the Parliament over the effectiveness of AITSL’s administration of national standards and frameworks.

Audit approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

1.18 The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of AITSL’s administration of national standards and frameworks.

1.19 To form a conclusion against the objective, the following high-level audit criteria were adopted:

• Has AITSL established fit-for-purpose governance arrangements to support the administration of national standards and frameworks?
• Has AITSL adopted an appropriate approach to developing, revising and supporting the implementation of national standards and frameworks?
• Does AITSL effectively measure, monitor, evaluate and report on national standards and frameworks?

1.20 The audit focused on AITSL’s work on national standards and frameworks in place as at September 2023. The audit did not examine the two sets of guidelines (Guidelines for the Induction of Early Career Teachers in Australia and Guidelines for the Induction of New School Leaders in Australia) agreed by education ministers in December 2023.

Audit methodology

1.21 The audit methodology included:

• examining and analysing AITSL documentation, with a focus on documents that relate to national standards and frameworks;
• meetings with relevant AITSL staff;
• a site visit to AITSL’s office in Melbourne; and
• engagement with key stakeholders.¹⁸

1.22 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $439,885.

1.23 The team members for this audit were Hazel Ferguson, Klein Anderson, Shannon Clark, Rajya Abo-Shaban, Rupal Darji, and David Tellis.

2.1 As a Commonwealth company and registered charity, AITSL is required to have governance arrangements in place that are consistent with:

• the provisions of the Constitution of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd (the AITSL Constitution), made under the Corporations Act 2001;
• Chapter 3 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act); and
• the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.

2.2 This includes obligations related to strategic planning, internal reporting, risk management, and the incorporation of expertise into its work.

2.3 AITSL has also adopted certain Australian Government policies, which are not required for Commonwealth companies under the PGPA Act, but which AITSL considers provide a better practice framework appropriate to its purpose. This includes the Commonwealth Risk Management Policy.¹⁹

Has AITSL established fit-for-purpose strategic planning arrangements which support its work on national standards and frameworks?

Strategic planning framework

2.4 AITSL does not have a strategic planning framework which documents the interactions between the AITSL Constitution, corporate plan, annual work plan, priorities given by education ministers, and its approach to providing strategic advice to ministers. The AITSL Board and Senior Executive Team consider which activities should be undertaken each year as part of the development of the budget and annual work plan. The company advised the ANAO on 6 September 2023 that it is the process of being tasked work by the Australian Government Education Minister and Education Ministers Meeting that drives its internal work planning. In the absence of a framework that articulates the relationship between this task taking and AITSL’s strategic planning documents, the AITSL Board lacks a basis to consider how new work will relate to the company’s existing priorities.

2.5 Figure 2.1 summarises the processes used by ministers to task AITSL with work. A small amount of AITSL’s work falls outside these arrangements, and is provided on a fee-for-service basis to state and territory and overseas governments, and individuals (see paragraph 1.9).

Figure 2.1: Arrangements for education ministers to allocate work to the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Corporate plan

2.6 Effective planning is critical to transparent and accountable government.²⁰ At the beginning of each planning cycle, AITSL is required to publish a corporate plan, to provide Parliament, the public, and stakeholders with information about the company’s purpose, objectives, functions, key activities, and how it will measure its performance.²¹

2.7 Under the Commonwealth Performance Framework, the corporate plan is intended to be a Commonwealth company’s primary planning document.²² The AITSL Corporate Plan 2023–2027 states that the company’s priorities and goals are detailed in the strategic plan and operationalised each year in the annual work plan.²³ The Corporate Plan meets the requirements for Commonwealth company corporate plans set out in section 16E of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014.

Strategic plan

2.8 AITSL’s Strategic Plan 2022–2026 (the Strategic Plan) was developed based on stakeholder consultation and a 2021 paper, Developing, Esteeming, and Investing in Expertise: The Second Decade of AITSL, developed by the Board of Directors (AITSL Board or the Board). The resulting strategic outcomes are included in the:

• Corporate Plan as the outcomes against which the company’s performance is to be measured; and
• Strategic Plan as the priorities under which planned work is detailed.

2.9 Unlike the corporate plan, the strategic plan is not updated annually.

Annual work plan

2.10 The AITSL Constitution requires an annual work plan to be developed by 30 June each year for approval by the Australian Government Minister for Education (the Education Minister). According to the Corporate Plan, the annual work plan includes ‘all work tasked to AITSL.’²⁴ The annual work plan is updated in response to significant changes. The annual work plan is not published.

2.11 The majority of the planned activities in the AITSL Work Plan 2022–23 (five of nine) and AITSL Work Plan 2023–24 as of October 2023 (15 of 21) relate to work to develop, revise, or support the implementation of national standards and frameworks. These are summarised in Appendix 3.

Alignment between planning documents

2.12 The Strategic Plan is aligned with the Corporate Plan via priorities and goals to achieve planned performance. The Corporate Plan specifies how AITSL’s performance will be measured in each priority area and the Strategic Plan details activities against each priority.

2.13 The same priorities and performance measures are included in the annual work plan in a separate table. The goals from the Strategic Plan are not mapped to the activities in the body of the annual work plan. The annual work plan is structured around AITSL’s different sources of funding, and the streams of work associated with these funding sources. This results in a lack of direct alignment between the published planning documents and the annual work plan.

2.14 AITSL manages its activities using the annual work plan. For each funding source in the annual work plan, key areas of activity, milestones and deliverables are provided. More detailed planning about how milestones and deliverables are to be achieved occurs using a Project Management Framework (July 2022). Under the Framework, AITSL staff are required to use templates for pre-planning and implementation planning which include considerations such as budget, timing, consultation, outputs, risks and approvals. Business as usual work (where there is no foreseeable end date) is not covered by the Framework.

Has AITSL established fit-for-purpose project management arrangements which support its work on national standards and frameworks?

Governance framework

2.16 As shown in Figure 2.2, AITSL’s internal reporting regarding work on national standards and frameworks operates in the context of a governance framework comprising:

• groups to support the AITSL Chief Executive (CEO) in day-to-day management of the company;
• committees of, or committees established to advise, the AITSL Board; and
• advisory groups reporting to the CEO.

Figure 2.2: The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s internal governance arrangements

Source: ANAO analysis based on AITSL governance structure documents.

Oversight of work on national standards and frameworks

2.17 AITSL develops, manages and executes its work on national standards and frameworks via projects (see Appendix 3). Under AITSL’s Project Management Framework:

• monitoring, review and information sharing on all projects is provided by the Project Steering Committee (PSC), which supports and escalates to the Operations Board;
• the Operations Board is the decision-making body for all project-related matters; and
• the Senior Executive Team (SET) receives reports of Operations Board decisions, and is the escalation point for projects the Operations Board considers high risk or off track (membership is detailed at Appendix 4).²⁵

2.18 The PSC and Operations Board manage project approval, implementation tracking, consideration of risks to delivery, and project closure, including lessons learned (more detail at Appendix 4). Changes during implementation that the PSC and Operations Board consider do not pose a risk to project delivery (such as changes to consultation plans) are not documented. Issues are escalated from the Operations Board to the SET. The SET is involved in monitoring potential projects, project approvals, and project closure.

Has AITSL established fit-for-purpose risk management arrangements which support its work on national standards and frameworks?

2.19 Risk management arrangements under the PGPA Act aim to achieve ‘a more mature approach to risk across the Commonwealth’, since engagement with risk is ‘a necessary first step in improving performance.’²⁶

2.20 The Commonwealth Risk Management Policy defines risk as ‘the effect of uncertainty on objectives’ and risk management as the ‘coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to risk.’²⁷ The Policy emphasises that risk management must be formalised through a risk management framework and embedded into the decision-making activities of an entity.²⁸ Commonwealth Companies are not required to comply with the Policy. AITSL has adopted the policy as a matter of good practice.²⁹

Risk management policy and procedures

2.21 AITSL has formalised its overarching approach to risk management in its Risk Management Policy. Entity-level oversight of the policy and its operation is provided via its internal governance committee structure (see Figure 2.2), by the AITSL Board and the Risk, Audit and Finance Committee, as well as senior executives and established bodies reporting to the CEO (except the Digital Working Group).

2.22 Under the Risk Management Policy, AITSL’s Risk Management Framework sets out how it manages strategic, operational and project risks. The Framework applies to all projects and activities undertaken by AITSL and outlines steps for identifying, managing and escalating emerging risks.

2.23 A Risk Management Guide assists staff in operationalising the Risk Management Framework, by breaking down the steps for assessment of project risk. It states:

No matter what step you’re at in the Risk Management Process, continuously reviewing, validating, and implementing Risk Assessment Activities will help to improve the ways in which risks are managed within your projects.

2.24 Use of the Risk Management Framework and Guide is a requirement of the Project Management Framework. A risk assessment is required as part of project pre-planning.

2.25 Between July 2022 and September 2023, AITSL assessed and managed risk in AITSL’s project planning, decision-making and management at all levels of the company (more detail at Appendix 5).

Management of strategic risks

2.26 As of October 2023, AITSL’s strategic risk register contains six strategic risks all with relevance to the company’s work on national standards and frameworks (Table 2.1). Relevant controls were identified for each risk, and AITSL rated controls against each risk as either moderate or substantial confidence. Recent actions (January 2023 to September 2023) to implement controls were recorded by responsible officers against each risk, with treatments identified in three areas (capacity to deliver, funding and authorising environment).

Table 2.1: Strategic risk controls and treatments relevant to national standards and frameworks, as of October 2023

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

2.27 The risk register and risk treatment registers contain information to support risk management, including:

• a risk overview, including risk category, title and description, the date raised and the risk owner;
• risk analysis, including contributing factors, implications, and current controls;
• risk appetite and tolerance;
• inherent and residual risk rating;
• strategic risk treatments, including completion and review dates, responsible officer names, and treatment outcomes; and
• progress reporting, including status updates, date of update, and individual responsible for the update.

2.28 The strategic risk register is used to advise the Risk, Audit and Finance Committee and the AITSL Board of any developments and changes to the risk environment, ratings, controls, and treatments, and for operational management of risks.

Has AITSL established fit-for-purpose arrangements to incorporate expert advice into decision-making about national standards and frameworks?

2.29 Rule 2.2(d) of the AITSL Constitution provides that in relation to its work on developing and maintaining national approaches, it is committed to ‘undertaking and engaging with international research and innovative developments in best practice.’ The AITSL Strategic Plan 2022–2026 articulates the company’s commitment to shaping, influencing, enhancing, esteeming, and supporting expertise as part of its work.³⁰

Board expertise

Membership

2.30 In December 2023, the AITSL Board comprised eight directors, including the Chair.³¹ ANAO analysis of governing board sizes at 30 June 2021 shows most (15 out of 18 Commonwealth companies) have boards made up of six to 10 members.³²

2.31 Rule 4.4(c) of the AITSL Constitution provides that, in appointing directors, the Minister should have regard to ‘the person’s skills and expertise in the following’:

• teacher education;
• regulation and accreditation of initial teacher education (ITE) courses;
• school leadership;
• teacher practitioner expertise;
• government school systems leadership and management;
• non-government school systems leadership and management;
• public policy;
• governance including audit, risk and finance; and
• government liaison.

2.32 The Department of Education is responsible for briefing the minister on board appointments. In addition to the specific requirements of the AITSL Constitution, paragraph 17(e) of the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 2022, made under the Public Service Act 1999, require departments to provide the minister with advice that is ‘frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’, including ‘providing advice that is relevant and comprehensive, is not affected by fear of consequences, and does not withhold important facts or bad news’.

2.33 From March 2020 to October 2023 board appointment (and reappointment) decisions were largely informed by strategic advice related to missing expertise, and gender and geographic balance. The three most recent appointments were not informed by a skills matrix or other high-level overviews of board expertise.

Expert committees

2.37 In addition to the expertise of directors, the AITSL Board is supported by two expert standing committees.

• The School Leadership and Teaching Expert Standing Committee (SLTESC) advises the AITSL Board on work it is progressing to promote excellence in teaching and school leadership to maximise impact on student learning in all Australian schools.
• The Teacher Education Expert Standing Committee (TEESC) assists the AITSL Board in its responsibilities relating to ITE.

2.38 Committees consistently discuss items of relevance to the national standards and frameworks. Members of the committees provide updates about current developments in teaching and school leadership and ITE. This is a source of intelligence for AITSL about the implementation of national standards and frameworks.

2.39 Of the agenda items relevant to national standards and frameworks, a total of eight (19 per cent) SLTESC items and 14 (31 per cent) TEESC items resulted in agreed actions (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Number of relevant substantive agenda items resulting in action, 2021–22 to 2023–24 (to September 2023)

Note a: An item was considered relevant if it related to the national standards and frameworks. All items not required for committee governance (for example, welcome and acknowledgement of country) have been considered substantive.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

2.40 Between July 2020 and September 2023, out of 20 AITSL Board meetings, there were 11 instances of expert committee advice being cited or sought. Expert committees provide reports to the Board after each meeting. A 2021 review of expert standing committees conducted by AITSL found that committees (Figure 2.2), while influential, lacked a clear understanding of their impact.³³

Guest experts

2.42 Alongside other provisions for accessing expertise, rule 12.11 of the AITSL Constitution provides that the ‘Board has the capacity to invite up to two persons with expertise in a specific subject to attend a meeting and provide advice to the Board.’ From 2021–22 to 2023–24 (up to September 2023) the Board held 12 meetings, and invited eight experts to these meetings.

Other mechanisms for accessing expertise

Procurement

2.43 The company engages external experts to support its work on national standards and frameworks. AITSL has established a Procurement Policy and supporting protocols, procedures and templates, setting out its process for procuring goods and services. This includes risk assessment, planning, evaluation, awarding of a contract, ongoing contract management, and completion of the contract period.

2.44 From January 2020 to September 2023, AITSL engaged experts to inform work on national standards and frameworks on nine occasions, for a total contracted value of $695,837 (including GST). In accordance with its Procurement Policy, AITSL has identified suppliers using competitive processes (seven requests for quote from identified suppliers, and one open tender), and sought approval for exemption from this requirement as required (one such instance was identified, and approval provided by the CEO on the basis that three experts were sought, and a very limited number were in the market who were independent of AITSL and certifying authorities).

Advisory groups

2.45 AITSL has four advisory groups, all of which provide advice to inform work related to national standards and frameworks (see Figure 2.2 and Appendix 6). In 2022 and 2023:

• two advisory groups (the Advisory Group for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education, and the Teaching Performance Assessment Expert Advisory Group) provided advice to inform AITSL’s work on national standards and frameworks at every meeting;
• the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher Advisory Group provided advice to inform AITSL’s work on national standards and frameworks at two of five meetings; and
• the Digital and Technology Advisory Group provided advice to inform AITSL’s work on national standards and frameworks at five of seven meetings.

3.1 AITSL’s Constitution provides that the company was established to support and advance the quality of teaching and leadership in Australian schools and other educational settings, and to foster, promote and drive high quality professional learning for teachers and school leaders.

3.2 The Australian Government needs to cooperate with state and territory governments, and the private and not-for-profit sectors, to deliver a range of objectives, including education policy.³⁴ As such, under Rule 2.2(a) of the AITSL Constitution, the company was formed ‘as a national organisation that operates openly, collaboratively, efficiently and ethically by working across jurisdictions and sectors through engagement with key bodies’.

Does AITSL have effective stakeholder engagement approaches in place to support the development, revision, and implementation of national standards and frameworks?

Approach to stakeholder engagement

3.3 AITSL undertakes stakeholder engagement in four ways:

• standing stakeholder forums;
• project-specific engagement;
• a stakeholder survey, which is conducted every two years; and
• other activities, such as senior executive meetings and presentations.³⁵

3.4 The company has not established an enterprise stakeholder engagement strategy, framework, or policy which would inform prioritisation, performance measurement, and risk management in respect to its stakeholder relationships. Some guidance is provided via its Project Management Framework (paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12).

3.5 Table 3.1 shows project-specific stakeholder engagement and standing stakeholder forums are among the top sources of information contributing to AITSL’s advice to education ministers.

Table 3.1: Information sources for the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s advice to education ministers^a, July 2020 to September 2023

Note a: Education ministers refers to advice provided to ministers individually and via the Education Ministers Meeting (EMM), Australian Education Senior Officials Committee (AESOC), and Schools Policy Group (SPG).

Note b: This is a count of the number of times AITSL drew on information for each source. The sum of the numbers does not equal the total number of relevant agenda items, as AITSL papers often cite more than one source of information.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

Stakeholder feedback

3.6 AITSL conducts a stakeholder survey every two years. The results of the survey are used as the basis for performance reporting in the annual report (paragraphs 4.17 and 4.22), published via the AITSL website, provided to the AITSL Board, and circulated internally to AITSL staff.

3.7 The most recent report to the AITSL Board, covering longitudinal analysis of all stakeholder surveys up to 2023, states that stakeholders have ‘somewhat positive perceptions’ of the company, with perceptions of how effectively it consults and communicates with the profession trending down in recent years (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership stakeholder survey results, ‘consults and communicates effectively with the profession’^a ratings, 2016 to 2023^b

Note a: The stakeholder survey asks respondents to rate their agreement with questions about their overall perceptions of AITSL, on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). The ratings provided are the aggregate response to whether the company ‘consults and communicates effectively with the profession’.

Note b: Results are collected and reported by calendar year. Survey sampling periods were 30 March to 15 May (4959 responses) in 2016, 27 March to 12 June (5561 responses) in 2019, 23 February to 11 April (2592 responses) in 2021, and 14 March to 22 May (5868 responses) in 2023.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

3.8 As part of this performance audit, the ANAO met with 13 stakeholders, and received a further 14 written submissions.³⁶ Feedback was generally positive, with most seeing the company’s stakeholder engagement as a strength.

Standing stakeholder forums

3.9 To facilitate ongoing consultation with external stakeholders, AITSL convenes four standing stakeholder forums, and participates in the Executive Officers Network, which is convened by the teacher regulatory authorities (see Table 3.2). Each forum is substantially concerned with work on the development, revision, and implementation of national standards and frameworks.

3.10 Engagement through these standing stakeholder forums provides AITSL with information about jurisdictional differences and potential barriers to implementation. For example, the National Professional Learning Network and Certifying Authorities Network provide an opportunity for AITSL to obtain information about work being progressed in states and territories that is relevant to professional learning and the Framework for the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers (HALT Framework).

Table 3.2: Standing stakeholder forums

Note a: The Australian Government Department of Education is a standing observer to Teacher Quality and Regulation Forum (TQRF) meetings. As of January 2024, the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) is also a conditional member of the TQRF.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

Project-specific stakeholder engagement

Project-specific guidance

3.11 AITSL’s Project Management Framework (July 2022) provides some guidance on stakeholder engagement for project managers. The Framework does not apply to AITSL’s business-as-usual work (that is, work without an identified end date). The Framework requires project teams to identify ‘all the people who have an interest in the project, and/or who may be influenced by its outcome’, and map their level of influence and interest to determine the frequency and method of communication (guidance from the Framework is at Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership project guidance, stakeholder mapping

Source: ANAO, based on AITSL, Project Management Framework (July 2022).

3.12 AITSL provides an implementation plan template to assist teams to meet the requirements of the Framework. It requires teams to identify project stakeholders (internal and external), including level of influence, level of interest, and frequency and method of communication. Under the Framework, project teams are not required to detail how or why engagement is to take place. There is no set procedure or written guidance for how the stakeholder mapping should inform decision-making in relation to engagement methods or frequency of engagement. The Project Management Framework also provides a pre-planning template and a closure report template which must be completed for all projects.

Assessment of AITSL project stakeholder engagement

3.13 In the absence of a mandated Australian Government approach, or enterprise strategy, framework, or policy, for AITSL’s stakeholder engagement, the ANAO assessed recent company projects against better practice guidance from the Australian Public Service Framework for Engagement and Participation (the Framework). The Framework sets out how Commonwealth entities can ‘engage effectively with citizens, community and business’.³⁷ It includes 10 standards to apply in engaging with stakeholders, as set out in Box 2.

3.14 All AITSL projects that were active in 2022 and 2023 included engagement with stakeholders. The ANAO’s assessment of relevant projects (except for two which were too early in implementation to be assessed) is summarised in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s adherence to Australian Public Service standards for engaging with stakeholders (see Box 2), key projects 2022 and 2023

Key:

○ No evidence of relevant activity (i.e. planning, implementation and closure).

◔ Significant issues identified, with evidence of major impact on the overall contribution stakeholder engagement the project.

◑ Issues identified, with some impact on the overall contribution stakeholder engagement efforts to the project.

◕ Issues identified, but these have not substantially undermined the overall contribution of stakeholder engagement to the project.

● Activities are consistent with AITSL’s policies and procedures and best practice.

Note a: The overall assessment of project closure relates only to the four projects identified as completed. The Professional Standards for Middle Leaders project is still in progress and has not been included.

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

3.15 As summarised in Table 3.3, AITSL:

• consistently develops project implementation plans, although two out of five did not identify or explain the objective of (standard 1), and three out of five did not explain the reason for the choice of approach to the engagement (standard 2)³⁸;
• manages expectations (standard 3), chooses the right people for the job (standard 4), and is transparent with participants about objectives and processes (standard 5);
• provides sufficient information regarding participants’ roles to them (standard 6), albeit with one instance of less detailed information in part of the High Quality Professional Learning project;
• chooses methods of engagement that provide opportunities for a range of suitable voices to be heard (standard 7), and for the company to understand all views, although in three instances there was no evidence of views being carried through into the decision-making stage (standard 8);
• consistently produces project closure reports, which are approved by the Operations Board, although the company was unable to provide evidence of consistently informing stakeholders about how their input had been used (standard 9); and
• uses project closure reports to consider lessons learned in respect to stakeholder management (among other areas), albeit with a lack of specific actionable lessons in two cases (standard 10).

3.16 In four of the five projects, AITSL did not fully meet record keeping requirements. AITSL does not consistently document communication with stakeholders, or changes to project plans during implementation. Under its Information Governance Framework, the company uses a network drive for record keeping, which is contrary to National Archives of Australia (NAA) recommendations.³⁹ The NAA recommends the use of an electronic document and records management system, rather than managing information with a network drive record-keeping.⁴⁰ The NAA identifies risks associated with using network drives, which would put AITSL staff at risk of not meeting their obligations in respect of Commonwealth records under the Archives Act 1983.⁴¹

3.17 The HALT project discussed in Case study 1 illustrates AITSL’s effective engagement with a range of voices, and understanding of a diversity of views.

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Does AITSL provide appropriate training, guidance, and information to support the implementation of national standards and frameworks?

Approach to developing training, guidance and information

3.21 AITSL predominantly develops training, guidance and information resources via projects at the request of education ministers, and on its own initiative. Funding for these projects covers resource development over a fixed period (see Appendix 3). Funding for projects does not cover costs such as ongoing web hosting and the cost of updating resources to ensure they remain current. The Grant Agreement — Core Funding is intended to cover operational costs and overheads (paragraph 1.8).

3.22 To understand the effectiveness of these resources, AITSL relies on:

• ongoing monitoring data from web analytics and AITSL’s stakeholder survey; and
• independent review and user feedback on training courses.

3.23 The company has no overarching strategy or framework to make use of this information to assess the effectiveness of, training, guidance and information. In the absence of such a strategy or framework to guide the overall management of its collection, AITSL is unable to identify when and if materials should be retired, and if any gaps in coverage are impacting how well it meets the needs of the sector.

3.25 As of December 2023, AITSL has 774 digital tools and resources to support the implementation of national standards and frameworks on its website (see Table 3.4). These resources are predominantly open access and available via AITSL’s website for teachers and school leaders across early childhood and school settings. In addition, AITSL provides six training courses via a password protected online learning platform.

Table 3.4: Active tools and resources by type (as of December 2023)^a

Note a: The following elements of AITSL’s website have been excluded from this table: resources that aim to direct traffic to tools and resources already covered elsewhere in the table (media releases, communication campaigns, webpages providing collections of resources, blogs, newsletters); resources that provide an evidence base for the national standards and frameworks or resources (data reports, research reports, and policy reports); and pages about how AITSL measures its own impact.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL website.

3.26 As illustrated by the Indigenous Cultural Responsiveness Initiative discussed in Case study 2, AITSL engages stakeholders in the development of these resources, including considering a diversity of perspectives.

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Tools and resources

3.27 The ANAO assessed nine of AITSL’s publicly accessible digital tools and resources to determine if they effectively support the implementation of national standards and frameworks (see Appendix 7).

3.28 Overall, eight of the nine tools and resources aligned to one or more of the national standards and frameworks. All nine had clear guidance for users to assist with the implementation of requirements set out in the national standards and frameworks. The emphasis on guidance for teachers and school leaders is appropriate to AITSL’s purpose. More consideration of secondary influences on core audiences (such as those responsible for employing teachers, who impose obligations on teachers and school leaders under the Standards) may further improve AITSL’s services in this area.

Training

3.30 The ANAO assessed AITSL’s six training courses to determine if they effectively support the implementation of national standards and frameworks (see Appendix 7).⁴²

3.31 The six training courses delivered via AITSL’s online learning platform provide clear implementation guidance, and are aligned to one or more of the national standards and frameworks. One of the courses, which is focused on the early childhood context, is less clearly aligned to the national standards and frameworks than the other courses. For example, registration requirements differ by state and territory, and are explained only by the provision of a link to the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) website. Equally, the early childhood content is limited by the language in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers themselves. For example, those undertaking training for the early childhood education sector are advised ‘“students” should be thought of as applying to “children” or “learners”’ when answering a question about knowing students and how they learn. This reflects the approach taken in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, where a glossary is provided to clarify that the school-focused language also applies to early childhood education settings.

4.1 Effective performance measurement, program evaluation and reporting supports early identification of risks and provides reasonable transparency and accountability regarding the outcomes of government expenditure.⁴³ This should include:

• how the company’s performance, in achieving its purpose, will be measured and assessed⁴⁴;
• clear objectives for policies, projects and programs, and measurement of progress towards achieving these objectives⁴⁵; and
• reporting of meaningful information with a clear line of sight between planned and actual performance.⁴⁶

Does AITSL have an effective approach to gain assurance about the ongoing currency and effectiveness of national standards and frameworks, and feed back information to decision-makers?

Assurance approach

4.2 As of September 2023, only the Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia: Standards and Procedures (Standards and Procedures) and Framework for the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers (HALT Framework) establish roles for AITSL in national quality assurance arrangements.⁴⁷ These arrangements come out of revisions to the Standards and Procedures in 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2023, and introduction of the HALT Framework in 2023, in place of the previous HALT policy.

4.3 Eight national standards and frameworks (as detailed in paragraph 1.11 and Table 1.2) include no assurance provisions. There could be benefit to AITSL and education ministers having more information about the implementation of all national standards and frameworks to inform the need for and priority of revisions. The key deficiency relates to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and Framework for Teacher Registration in Australia.

4.4 Between January 2020 and September 2023, AITSL recommended the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers be revised 13 times. For example, in November 2020, AITSL recommended that the content be evaluated, and that AITSL develop an evaluation plan, including proposed timelines, budget and cost-sharing arrangements. These recommendations have not been adopted by education ministers. In 2020, AITSL stated in advice to the Schools Policy Group (a subcommittee of the Australian Education Senior Officials Committee):

The Teacher Standards are embedded within policies and processes across jurisdictions, and there is a relative lack of demand to change what is considered a high-quality document.

…

Teacher Standards are embedded deeply in policies and processes at the system level across all jurisdictions, particularly in regulatory processes where stakeholders need to map evidence against specific descriptors. These processes include initial teacher education, teacher registration, national certification at the Highly Accomplished and Lead career stages, professional learning and industrial agreements. Stakeholders that administer these areas are most likely to be impacted by a change to the Teacher Standards.

Initial teacher education (ITE) program quality assurance

4.5 Initial teacher education (ITE) program accreditation arrangements under the Standards and Procedures were revised in response to the 2014 Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers report from the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG).⁴⁸

4.6 The revised Standards and Procedures provide for AITSL to facilitate a national accreditation process quality framework with three key components. As summarised in Table 4.1, since 2018, AITSL has worked with ITE stakeholders in accordance with its responsibilities under the revised Standards and Procedures to:

• develop and implement a methodology for consistent accreditation of ITE programs;
• introduce requirements to assess graduating teachers to ensure they meet the Graduate Teacher Standards; and
• provide ITE data reports to inform intergovernmental decision-making about the ITE program accreditation process.

4.7 Table 4.1 also highlights ongoing challenges.

Table 4.1: The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s role in quality assurance of the Standards and Procedures for Initial Teacher Education

Note a: Program Standard 1.2 requires that program design and assessment processes require pre-service teachers to have successfully completed a final-year teaching performance assessment prior to graduation that is shown to: a. be a reflection of classroom teaching practice including the elements of planning, teaching, assessing and reflecting; b. be a valid assessment that clearly assesses the content of the Graduate Teacher Standards; c. have clear, measurable and justifiable achievement criteria that discriminate between meeting and not meeting the Graduate Teacher Standards; d. be a reliable assessment in which there are appropriate processes in place for ensuring consistent scoring between assessors; e. include moderation processes that support consistent decision-making against the achievement criteria.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL, Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia Standards and Procedures [Internet], 2022, available from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia [accessed 30 October 2023] and other AITSL documents.

Information to decision-makers

4.8 Between January 2020 and September 2023, AITSL’s ITE data analysis reports to the Education Ministers Meeting (formerly Education Council), the Australian Education Senior Officials Committee, and the Schools Policy Group were provided as agreed (Table 4.1). No other assurance reporting was provided.

4.9 AITSL has capacity to gather information about implementation outside national assurance arrangements, including via expert committees and advisory groups (see paragraphs 2.37 to 2.41 and 2.45) and standing stakeholder forums (see paragraphs 3.9 to 3.10). Record keeping for these standing stakeholder forum meetings is not designed to provide assurance.

4.10 AITSL has not established national assurance arrangements across the standards. As a result, AITSL is unable to provide robust information about the operation of national standards and frameworks to decision-makers to inform the need for and priority of revisions to the national standards and frameworks.

Does AITSL effectively measure, evaluate and report on its work on national standards and frameworks?

Performance measurement

4.13 Under the Commonwealth Performance Framework, Commonwealth entities and companies must report on how their performance, in achieving their purpose, will be measured and assessed.⁴⁹

4.14 Section 16EA of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule) sets out the requirements for performance measures for Commonwealth entities (see Box 3 below). While Commonwealth companies are not obliged to meet these requirements, AITSL does so ‘to maintain best practice in performance reporting and public disclosure of impact.’⁵⁰

Source: Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, section 16EA.

Enterprise-wide performance framework

4.15 According to its Performance Reporting Policy, AITSL measures its performance according to:

• stakeholder awareness, perception, and engagement with AITSL policies, tools, resources, and programs; and
• effectiveness in attaining its objectives, as set out in the annual work plan and program evaluation frameworks referenced in the AITSL measurement strategy.

4.16 The Performance Reporting Policy (February 2021, in the process of being updated at the time of this audit) provides that performance measures are to be reviewed annually and approved by AITSL’s Risk, Audit and Finance Committee. The performance measures are approved by the Board.

Completeness of performance information

4.17 AITSL’s 2023–27 corporate plan includes five performance measures, four of which are directly relevant to its work on national standards and frameworks (the fifth being related to the company’s internal culture).⁵¹ Table 4.2 summarises analysis of these measures. Table 4.4 includes AITSL’s annual public performance reporting against these measures.

4.18 As outlined in Table 4.2, AITSL relies on three sources of information to report against its performance measures:

• biennial stakeholder survey (for three performance measures (number 1, 2 and 4));
• website analytics (for one performance measure (number 4)); and
• monitoring delivery of work outputs (for one performance measure (number 3)).

4.19 The ANAO identified the following key issues with AITSL’s performance information:

• the company does not set targets for each year of the four year corporate plan performance reporting period;
• information from the stakeholder survey reported in the performance statements should provide readers with an understanding of the survey methodology (including any limitations on the survey methodology);
• information about delivery of work outputs against the annual work plan could be improved by clarifying that the annual work plan can be amended during the year (paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11); and
• counts of work outputs and website access statistics could be combined with qualitative information, such as project records, to provide more complete coverage of measures of stakeholder engagement, and the quality and evidence-base of resources.

Table 4.2: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Corporate Plan 2023–2027 performance measures and targets

Source: ANAO based on AITSL, AITSL Corporate Plan 2023–2027, p. 4, available from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/corporate/aitsl-2023-2027-corporate-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=3e3be3c_2 [accessed 18 March 2024].

Relevant and useful performance information

4.20 Meaningful performance information allows Parliament and other users and readers to understand what has been achieved, how well it has been achieved, and factors that have impacted on this achievement.⁵² Where entities fail to report on significant aspects of their business, it is difficult for the reader to assess whether the entity is doing a good job and delivering value for money.⁵³

4.21 AITSL’s performance measures are generally well aligned with its purpose, but are process, perception, and output focused, rather than measuring the company’s impact. AITSL uses a proxy measure (the perception of its role in supporting and recognising the profession) in relation to its performance against ‘supporting and advancing the quality of teaching and leadership in Australian schools and other educational settings’.

4.22 AITSL advised the ANAO on 6 September 2023 that its measurement approach is based on the premise that it is not possible to precisely measure the impact of national standards and frameworks on teaching quality. There are a range of factors shaping teaching quality, and Australia does not have a nationally consistent approach to measuring teaching quality. In June 2022, AITSL recommended to the Productivity Commission’s Review of the National School Reform Agreement that measures of teaching quality be incorporated into future performance reporting under the National School Reform Agreement. The next National School Reform Agreement is due to commence in January 2025.⁵⁴

Evaluation

4.25 The Commonwealth Evaluation Policy, introduced in December 2021, outlines that all Commonwealth entities and companies should set clear objectives for policies, projects and programs, and measure progress towards achieving these objectives.⁵⁵ Evaluation activities help entities and their stakeholders to understand and improve the performance of government initiatives, and ensure intended outcomes are being achieved.⁵⁶

4.26 AITSL’s Constitution does not impose any specific evaluation obligations on the company. Under AITSL’s Impact Measurement Strategy 2019:

AITSL’s current approach to monitoring and evaluation is based on program-level (i.e. individual streams of work) research and evaluation frameworks linked to an overarching theory of change of AITSL’s overall impact. The focus is on impacting teachers and school leaders, with the ultimate goal of contributing to all young Australians becoming successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens.

4.27 Table 4.3 provides a summary of AITSL’s evaluation activities from 2020–21 to 2022–23.⁵⁷

Table 4.3: Evaluation by area of activity, 2020–21 to 2022–23

Key:

■ No relevant activity in the relevant time period.

▲ Activity identified in the relevant time period; quality, completeness, or timeliness concerns.

◆ Activity identified in the relevant time period; high quality, complete and timely.

Note a: Areas of activity include more than one relevant project.

Note b: Including work related to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders, Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework, and Framework for Teacher Registration in Australia.

Note c: Response to evaluation includes actions agreed by the Board, expert committees, and/or Senior Executive Team. This assessment includes only responses to reports delivered during the period 2020–21 to 2022–23, which does not capture ongoing work as a result of evaluations prior to 2020–21.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

4.28 As shown in Table 4.3, AITSL consistently established evaluation frameworks for projects in each area of activity. These frameworks are each for a limited term. AITSL advised the ANAO on 1 March 2024 that its evaluation frameworks cover the period from when project deliverables are made public to when the short and/or medium-term outcomes are proposed to be achieved (generally three to five years), and then deliverables move to ‘ongoing monitoring’ status. This was generally evident in the assessment summarised in Table 4.3, with most frameworks current for areas of activity. The Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers (HALT) did not have a current framework in 2023. The framework concluded in 2022, while work in this area was ongoing. Commonwealth entities and companies can benefit from taking a strategic, risk-based approach to considering what, when and how to evaluate.⁵⁸ Program outcomes and impacts (emphasised in the excerpt from AITSL’s Impact Measurement Strategy 2019 above) are usually best evaluated near or at the end of a program, or after it has matured.⁵⁹

4.29 Evaluation reports effectively supported AITSL’s work on national standards and frameworks in three areas of activity:

• in ITE, AITSL’s work was part of an evaluation (commissioned by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment), and a national review (commissioned by the Australian Government); and
• evaluation reports were developed which aligned with the relevant evaluation framework, provided actionable recommendations, and were based on relevant sources of information and analysis in two further areas:
  • teacher induction; and
  • school leadership.

4.30 Two areas of activity were found to have evaluation reports that were less effective.

• in relation to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, the sole evaluation report from the relevant period presented findings that were not aligned to the relevant evaluation framework (i.e. presented solely in a ‘spotlight’ format geared to practitioners); and
• in relation to the HALT work, the evaluation report lacked focus on evaluating the effect of the national policy itself (i.e. the report measured attitudes to HALT certification in broad terms).

4.31 The AITSL Board and expert committees generally consider or note evaluation reports. Of the five areas of activity, there was no response to one report (the High-Quality Professional Learning for Australian Teachers and School Leaders Spotlight, which was part of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers activity). School leadership saw relevant actions identified and taken by the project team. For ITE, the reports were noted rather than actions being considered or agreed.

Reporting

4.32 Effective reporting provides meaningful information with a clear line of sight between planned and actual performance.⁶⁰ Public reporting by Australian Government entities provides reasonable transparency regarding outcomes from public expenditure. AITSL is subject to ministerial reporting obligations under its Constitution, obligations to report to the Department of Education under its grant agreements, and annual reporting obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).⁶¹

4.33 In relation to whether AITSL met its obligations to report to the Parliament, the minister and the department from 2020–21 to 2022–2023, Table 4.4 shows:

• the annual report to the Parliament, and annual work plan (see paragraphs 2.10 to 2.11) and achievements report to the department and minister were consistently provided across the three years; and
• project-specific reporting obligations to the Department of Education were also met, except for one project budget allocation report in 2021–22.

Table 4.4: The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s compliance with reporting obligations

Key:

✔ Reporting obligations met; complete and timely.

✘ Reporting obligations not met.

Note a: The requirement for a project budget allocation report did not apply for the 2020–21 financial year. This was introduced under the Grant Agreement – Projects, which was not executed until 7 October 2021.

Note b: AITSL had no completed projects to report on between 2020–21 and 2021–22, that were funded under the Projects Grant Agreement.

Note c: During 2022–23, AITSL had no project milestone or budget allocation reporting obligations. All in progress projects concluded during this period, and reporting obligations were met by delivering final project reports.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL documents.

4.34 Milestone/deliverable reports including all project updates and budget allocation tracking were provided via consolidated quarterly progress reports in 2020–21. From 2021–22, individual project reports were provided as specified in the relevant project orders. While both approaches comply with AITSL’s reporting obligations under its grant agreements the latter provides less visibility of AITSL’s overall work program.

4.35 Information about how projects are tracking against budget allocations has not been provided since June 2021. While the financial acquittal sections in the Final Project Reports identify income and expenditure for the relevant project, as required by Grant Agreement — Projects, no further breakdown showing where expenditure is allocated is provided. Transparency of project expenditure and departmental oversight of project expenditure is therefore limited.

Note a: On 7 May 2024, the Department of Education advised the ANAO that it agreed with this opportunity for improvement, and stated: ‘The department acknowledges there is scope to require AITSL to provide a more detailed breakdown showing where expenditure will be allocated and tracking this as the project progresses. In future, the department will request that AITSL deliver more consistent and transparent reports and provide guidance as to its expectations.’

Appendix 1 Entity responses

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

Department of Education

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the ANAO

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny improves performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices usually occur: in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s Corporate Plan states that the ANAO’ s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. During the course of the audit, the ANAO did not observe changes in the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s approach to administering national standards and frameworks.

Appendix 3 National standards and frameworks planned activity, 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2024

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Appendix 5 Risk oversight arrangements — Risk Management Policy

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Appendix 6 Advisory group membership and purpose

Source: ANAO based on AITSL documents.

Appendix 7 Training, guidance, and information selection methodology and detailed assessment

1. Due to differences in the large number of training, guidance and information resources developed by AITSL, the ANAO selected a range of artifacts for testing. To ensure a relevant range of training, guidance and information resources were included, artifacts were selected based on:

• artifact type — all artifacts were initially mapped to understand the different types of resources available (Table 3.4 provides this mapping, updated to December 2023);
• frequency of access by users in the 12 months to September 2023 — the most viewed resource for each type was selected based on page views for the entire AITSL website; and
• those artifacts that are central to AITSL’s service delivery — a number of additional resources were selected based on AITSL’s recommendation and the audit team’s understanding of AITSL’s work priorities in the 12 months to September 2023, including all training resources, which are required to be provided by education ministers, under the relevant national standards and frameworks.

Table A.1: Summary and assessment of selected publicly available online tools and resources

Key:

■ Does not meet expectations/test criteria.

▲Some issues identified.

◆ Meets expectations/test criteria.

Note a: This video is part of a collection about classroom observation. The issue identified is a lack of link to standards or frameworks within this video. The Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework is linked in a resource accompanying another video in the collection. ANAO also noted the ‘transcript’ link directed to a page marked N/A, signalling AITSL is not compliant with accessibility requirements.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL tools and resources.

Table A.2: Training courses — summary and assessment

Key:

■ Does not meet expectations/test criteria.

▲Some issues identified.

◆ Meets expectations/test criteria.

Note a: Contains out of date reference to the Guide to the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in Australia (AITSL 2017), which was replaced by the HALT Framework, 2023, endorsed in July 2023. Between March and October 2023, AITSL advised the Certifying Authorities Network, Australian Education Senior Officials Committee, and Education Ministers Meeting about the need to address this issue, and relevant work is now underway.

Note b: Some of the adaptations to the early childhood context are not very clear, because registration requirements differ by state and territory. In other cases, the adaptation is limited by the language in the Standards themselves.

Source: ANAO analysis of AITSL training materials.