How do providers decide you have failed satisfactory course progress in 2026?

There is no single national failure line for satisfactory course progress. Under the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018, each registered provider has to set that point itself in a written policy, and can only assess a student as failing against the point it wrote down. The clauses that require this are Standard 8.7.4 (schools, ELICOS and Foundation programs), 8.8.5 (higher education) and 8.9.5 (VET), published in the official Standard 8 (Overseas student visa requirements) and Standard 10 (Complaints and appeals) text on the Federal Register of Legislation, as at September 2026 official text.

What does "failed to meet satisfactory course progress" legally rest on?

It rests on a provider document, not on a government number. Standard 8 opens with the monitoring duty: providers must monitor each overseas student's course progress and, where applicable, attendance for every course in which the student is enrolled (8.1), and must monitor progress so the student stays in a position to complete the course within the expected duration on their CoE (8.3). The CoE duration itself cannot exceed the CRICOS-registered duration (8.2).

What turns that monitoring duty into a decision is Standard 8.7.4, 8.8.5 and 8.9.5. Each of those clauses requires the provider's documented policy to specify "processes for determining the point at which the overseas student has failed to meet satisfactory course progress". The assessment for "failed" is therefore an internal determination made under a written rule, which is exactly why the policy text — not a general impression of how universities or colleges behave — is the thing to check against.

This article describes framework rules only, and is general information rather than advice on any individual case; an actual outcome depends on the provider's documented policy and on the official text in force when the decision is made.

What has to be written into the policy before the failure point can be used?

The determination point is one item in a list of things that must exist on paper and be implemented. Standard 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 each require four or five elements in the same policy, and they are cumulative: a provider cannot rely on 8.7.4 in isolation if the elements around it are missing.

The elements that must sit beside the failure point are a statement of the requirements for achieving satisfactory course progress, the processes for recording and assessing progress, the processes for identifying students at risk, and the details of the intervention strategy. Standard 8.5 adds a timing requirement: the provider must clearly outline and inform the overseas student of the requirements to achieve satisfactory course progress, and attendance where applicable, in each study period, before the student commences the course.

Where the higher education and VET clauses differ is instructive. Both 8.8.1 and 8.9.1 require the policy to address academic integrity and to include processes to address misconduct and allegations of misconduct; 8.9.1 additionally requires the requirements to meet training package or accredited course requirements where applicable. The schools/ELICOS/Foundation clause set has no equivalent integrity wording, but is paired with the attendance policy required by 8.6.

Sector	Clause carrying the failure point	Same policy must also specify
Schools, ELICOS, Foundation	8.7.4	8.7.1 requirements for satisfactory progress; 8.7.2 recording and assessing progress; 8.7.3 intervention strategy — plus the separate attendance policy under 8.6, including the 80 per cent minimum and the absence trigger
Higher education	8.8.5	8.8.1 requirements, including academic integrity policies and misconduct processes; 8.8.2 recording and assessing; 8.8.3 identifying at-risk students; 8.8.4 intervention strategy
VET (as defined in the NVETR Act)	8.9.5	8.9.1 requirements, including training package or accredited course requirements where applicable and misconduct processes; 8.9.2 recording and assessing; 8.9.3 identifying at-risk students; 8.9.4 intervention strategy

VET carries one further variation: where an ESOS agency requires attendance monitoring as a condition of registration, 8.10 requires a separate documented attendance policy, 8.11 sets the minimum at 80 per cent of scheduled contact hours, and 8.12 sets out what that policy must contain, including its own determination point at 8.12.4.

Does the provider have to act before deciding you failed?

Yes, and the prior steps are a distinct obligation rather than guidance. Standard 8.4 requires documented policies and processes to identify, notify and assist an overseas student at risk of not meeting course progress or attendance requirements, where there is evidence from the student's assessment tasks, participation in tuition activities, or other indicators of academic progress.

The intervention strategy clauses — 8.7.3, 8.8.4 and 8.9.4 — require those details to be written down with a timing purpose: they must assist at-risk students "in sufficient time for those students to achieve satisfactory course progress". The written record of what was offered, and when, is therefore part of the same policy area as the failure decision itself.

Assume a hypothetical student enrolled in a VET course whose policy defines the failure point as failing more than half the units attempted in two consecutive study periods. The question for that student is not only whether the marks were right, but whether their results or participation triggered the 8.9.3 identification step and whether the 8.9.4 intervention strategy recorded for them matches what the policy says should have happened first. If those earlier items were never documented, the later determination is exposed on procedural grounds even before the merits are argued.

What must the written notice contain?

Standard 8.13 gives the notice its fixed content. Once the provider has assessed the student as not meeting course progress or attendance requirements, it must give written notice as soon as practicable, and that notice must state that the provider intends to report the student for unsatisfactory course progress or attendance (8.13.1), set out the reasons for the intention to report (8.13.2), and advise the student of the right to access the provider's complaints and appeals process under Standard 10 within 20 working days (8.13.3).

The reasons element is the one that connects back to the policy. A helpful reason statement refers to the specific determination point the policy relies on, rather than restating only that the standard was not met.

When can the report actually be entered in PRISMS?

Standard 8.14 limits reporting tightly. A provider may only report unsatisfactory course progress or attendance in PRISMS under section 19(2) of the ESOS Act in one of four situations: the internal and external complaints processes have been completed and the decision or recommendation supports the provider (8.14.1); the student chose not to access the internal complaints and appeals process within the 20 working day period (8.14.2); the student chose not to access the external complaints and appeals process (8.14.3); or the student withdrew from the internal or external process by notifying the provider in writing (8.14.4).

The practical effect is that the 20 working day window is a genuine gate. Reporting before one of those four conditions exists is outside what 8.14 permits.

Where do the Standard 10 timelines fit?

Standard 10 governs the appeal that the 8.13 notice offers. The provider must have a documented internal complaints handling and appeals process and policy, and give the student comprehensive, free and easily accessible information about it (10.1). That process must let the student lodge a formal complaint or appeal where the matter cannot be resolved informally (10.2.1), commence assessment of the complaint or appeal within 10 working days of it being made and finalise the outcome as soon as practicable (10.2.3), give the student an opportunity to formally present their case at minimal or no cost and be accompanied by a support person (10.2.4), and produce a written statement of outcome including detailed reasons (10.2.6).

If the internal process is unsuccessful, the provider must advise the student within 10 working days of concluding the internal review of the right to access an external complaints handling and appeals process at minimal or no cost, and must give the contact details of the appropriate body (10.3). If either process results in a decision or recommendation in favour of the student, the provider must immediately implement it or take the required preventive or corrective action, and advise the student of that action (10.4).

Is there any discretion to hold back a report?

There is, but narrowly and only for attendance. Standard 8.15 allows a provider to decide not to report a breach of attendance requirements if the student is still attending at least 70 per cent of scheduled course contact hours and, for school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses, provides genuine evidence of compassionate or compelling circumstances (8.15.1), or, for VET courses, is maintaining satisfactory course progress (8.15.2). Nothing in the Standard 8 text creates an equivalent carve-out for course progress.

What if the answer is an enrolment extension instead?

Standard 8.16 restricts that route too. A provider must not extend the duration of enrolment when the student cannot complete within the expected duration unless one of three things applies: compassionate or compelling circumstances assessed on the basis of demonstrable evidence (8.16.1); the provider has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, an intervention strategy because the student is at risk of not meeting course progress (8.16.2); or there has been an approved deferral or suspension of enrolment under Standard 9 (8.16.3). Where an extension is granted, 8.17 requires the provider to advise the student of potential impacts on their visa, including the possible need to obtain a new visa.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a national rule that failing 50 per cent of units means failed course progress?

No. The National Code sets requirements for what each provider's policy must specify, but the substantive threshold is drawn by the registered provider in that documented policy under 8.7.4, 8.8.5 or 8.9.5. The enforceable national requirement is procedural: the point must exist, be written down, and be applied through the surrounding recording, intervention and notification steps.

Can a provider rely on a determination point that is not in its written policy?

The Standard 8 clauses require the processes for determining the failure point to be part of the provider's documented and implemented policy. A determination made on a basis the policy does not state sits outside the process the provider is obliged to have and implement, and is the first thing worth checking when reading a notice issued under 8.13.

How long do I have to start an appeal after receiving the notice?

Standard 8.13.3 requires the notice itself to advise you of the right to access the complaints and appeals process within 20 working days, and Standard 8.14.2 treats not accessing the internal process within that 20 working day period as one of the conditions permitting PRISMS reporting. Standard 10.2.3 separately requires assessment to commence within 10 working days of the appeal being made.

Can the provider report me while an appeal is still running?

Reporting is permitted only under the four conditions in Standard 8.14. The first of those requires that the internal and external complaints processes have been completed and that the outcome supports the provider, so an appeal that is live and unresolved does not satisfy 8.14.1.

Does the provider have to assist me before concluding I failed?

Yes. Standard 8.4 requires documented policies to identify, notify and assist at-risk students, and 8.7.3, 8.8.4 and 8.9.4 require the intervention strategy to be written down so students can be assisted in sufficient time to achieve satisfactory progress. Those steps are meant to run before the failure point is reached, not after it.

Which clauses deal with attendance rather than progress?

Standard 8.6 covers attendance for schools, ELICOS and Foundation programs, setting a minimum of 80 per cent of scheduled contact hours at 8.6.1 and requiring processes to determine the failure point for attendance at 8.6.5. For higher education and VET, attendance monitoring arises under 8.10 only where an ESOS agency sets it as a condition of registration; the 80 per cent minimum in 8.11 and the policy content requirements in 8.12 apply where an ESOS agency requires a VET provider to monitor overseas student attendance.