Precedents database
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AQU – Compliance (2022) how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities
AQU
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that in the implementation of ESG 1.9 the review panel considered how AQU’s different activities address the cyclicity of external reviews. The Committee, however, underlined that the focus of the standard is on the monitoring and periodical review of programmes as part of the institutions internal QA, ensuring that objectives set for the programmes are achieved and that monitoring processes lead to the continuous improvement of the programme.
Given that the Register Committee was unable to draw a definitive conclusion on how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities, the issue should thus receive close attention in AQU’s next review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – HCERES – Partial compliance (2022) lack of coverage for certain ESG Part 1 standards in international programme accreditation
HCERES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 28/06/2022 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords lack of coverage for certain ESG Part 1 standards in international programme accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision Partial compliance “9. The review report showed that several standards of ESG Part 1 (1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10) are not addressed in (international) programme accreditation. While HCERES explained to the panel that they adapt their standards according to the foreign context, this creates a situation where a study programme might be accredited by HCERES without having been assessed against the full ESG Part 1.
10. The panel considered that (international) programme accreditations are small in number compared to (national) programme evaluations and other activities of HCERES. The Register Committee, however, considered that the issue at hand is not an occasional or statistical error, but a structural and systemic deficiency for an entire external quality assurance activity of HCERES.
11. As a programme accredited by HCERES will be regarded as ESG-aligned by the public, confirmed by the entry of those programmes in DEQAR, the lack of full ESG Part 1 coverage represents a substantial shortcoming. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel's conclusion that HCERES complies with the standard, but concluded that HCERES only partially complies with ESG 2.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ASIIN – Compliance (2021) How ESG Part 1 is embedded in subject-specific label reviews
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ASHE Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords How ESG Part 1 is embedded in subject-specific label reviews Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its Change Report Decision of 02/11/2020, the Register Committee requested that the next external review of ASIIN considers how the agency ensures sufficient coverage of ESG Part 1 in its combined (“piggybacking”) procedures (ESG 2.1). The agency explained that ESG Part 1 is embedded as a standard procedure in every external QA activity carried out (Self Evaluation Report p. 35). Having considered how ESG Part 1 is mapped against ASIIN’s seals while also including the standards of the German Accreditation Council, the panel was convinced of the coverage and link to ESG Part 1 in all its activities. The documents confirmed that all subject-specific label requirements are assessed in addition to ASIIN's generic standards for degree programmes, which incorporate ESG Part 1. The panel also underlined that SAR templates for each review method were structured to follow ESG Part 1. The Register Committee was therefore satisfied that ESG Part 1 is sufficiently addressed in ASIIN’s combined (“piggybacking”) procedures.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AAQ – Partial compliance (2021) Incomplete coverage of Part 1 of the ESG
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2021 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Incomplete coverage of Part 1 of the ESG Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that AAQ does not cover ESG 1.3 (Student-centred
learning, teaching and assessment) and covers ESG 1.2 (Design and
approval of programme) only partially in the criteria for institutional
accreditation. These standards are only fully covered in programme accreditation,
which is voluntary except for health professions. As institutional
accreditation is the core activity of the agency and the only mandatory
external quality assurance for all Swiss institutions, it should assure full
coverage of ESG Part 1 by itself.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AKAST – Compliance (2020) Narrow focus in addressing Part 1 of the ESG
AKAST
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Narrow focus in addressing Part 1 of the ESG Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The panel stated that requirements of ESG Part 1 are reflected in AKAST’s own guidelines for institutional evaluation and that the new review criteria to be applied by AKAST for accreditation of canonical study programmes in Germany follows the ESG. The Register Committee found the review panel’s analysis brief and lacking in analysis. However the Committee took note of the “equivalence” table” provided by the agency, mapping how ESG 1.1 to 1.10 are addressed in the agency’s programme accreditation procedures and found that standards are addressed implicitly, with a limited coverage, in particular with regards to ESG 1.1, ESG 1.3 and ESG 1.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Part 1 insufficiently covered; Lack of clear guidance what should be evaluated by experts
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 insufficiently covered; Lack of clear guidance what should be evaluated by experts Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Reviewing each of the agency’s procedures individually the review panel showed that the independent evaluation procedure (international accreditation of educational programmes) does not sufficiently cover aspects related to ESG Part 1, concerning student- centred learning and teaching, the system for consideration of students’ appeals and complaints.In its additional representation the agency stated that new indicators have been added covering these matters and provided a full self-assessment with the mapping of its criteria to the ESG. In case of professional-public accreditations the panel was not able to gather conclusive evidence about what criteria are checked by the expert panel in these reviews. Following the analysis of AKKORK’s own standards and their correlation with ESG (according to the agency’s additional information) the Register Committee took note of the mapping and revisions, but could not conclude whether all concerns of the panel have been addressed. The Committee further underlined that the revised criteria still had to be officially approved, tested and implemented by AKKORK in its professional-public accreditation procedures. The Register Committee noted that experts do not have clear guidelines on what they are expected to evaluate and how to refer back to the agency’s own criteria. In its additional representation AKKORK provided its revised guidelines (as of 30/01/2020) describing its procedures and the assessment criteria that experts are expected to follow. The Register Committee welcomed the revised version of the guidelines, but noted that its use and implementation has yet to be reviewed by an external review panel. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – evalag – Compliance (2019) Part 1 reflected in evalag’s criteria
evalag
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 reflected in evalag’s criteria Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “When evalag’s registration was last renewed, it was flagged for attention whether all standards of Part 1 of the ESG are consistently addressed in evalag’s accreditations and evaluations.The Register Committee noted the panel’s comprehensive analysis, based on evalag’s SAR and mapping tables, of how Part 1 of the ESG is reflected in the agency’s different sets of criteria. The Committee concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AHPGS – Partial compliance (2020) Part 1 not clearly reflected in some processes
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 not clearly reflected in some processes Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. The review panel concluded that “the quality assurance processes described in Part 1 of the ESG should be addressed with more detail in the assessments carried out outside Germany” (p. 30).
11. In its statement on the review report, AHPGS referred to additional explanations added to the corresponding handbooks in this regard. In the additional representation, AHPGS made these changes more visible in the text.
12. The Register Committee considered that this demonstrates in theory how ESG Part 1 will be addressed in more detail in future assessments, while the practical impact of those changes remains to be evaluated in detail within the next external review of AHPGS.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ECTE – Non-compliance (2022) scope of the ESG, EQF level 5/short cycle, partial qualifications, alternative providers, QF-EHEA as decisive reference point
ECTE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 28/06/2022 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords scope of the ESG, EQF level 5/short cycle, partial qualifications, alternative providers, QF-EHEA as decisive reference point Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (24/04/2024)
RC decision Non-compliance “10. The external review panel noted that ECTE accredits institutions and programmes which belong to the “category of post-secondary courses/programmes” and which – in the panel's view – “are not covered by the ESG”. In particular, the panel refers to programmes such as Certificates1 in Theology, Diploma2 in Theology or the Postgraduate Certificate3 in Theology according to Appendix A of ECTE's Standards and Guidelines (see p. 15 of the review report).
11. In its response to EQAR's clarification request, the panel noted that it was “obvious for the panel that both the ESG and EQAR registration only cover formal tertiary education at bachelor and master level (levels 6 and 7 EQF)”4.
12. ECTE – in its standards – portrayed a “Certificate” as a partial qualification at/within EQF level 5 and a “Diploma” as a short-cycle, EQF level 5 qualification. In principle, short-cycle qualifications at EQF level 5 can be considered as part of the QF-EHEA. Moreover, the ESG generally cover higher education in its broadest sense and can also be applied to provision that is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree. [...]
14. Given that EQF level 5 and provision outside full formal degree programmes is not per se excluded from the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee confirmed this in the tripartite Terms of Reference.
15. The Register Committee considered that the distinction made by the panel between accreditation of higher education within the scope of the ESG and “post-secondary education” outside the scope of the ESG cannot be derived from the Terms of Reference, nor from ECTE's own presentation of its work. [...]
28. In the case of an alternative provider, the quality assurance procedure carried out by an EQAR-registered agency might be the only occasion to externally verify whether the education offered by the alternative provider is indeed at higher education level in terms of its learning outcomes. Therefore, the Committee found that attention to ESG Part 1 and in particular ESG 1.2 with its requirement that the qualification resulting from a programme should refer to the correct level of the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) are of crucial importance in the domain of alternative providers.
29. Given that ECTE accredits a large number of alternative providers (see also under ESG 3.1) the Register Committee underlined that ESG 2.1 was a particularly crucial standard; it sought to ascertain that criteria are robust, fully aligned with the QF-EHEA and applied stringently in all cases, so as to protect the label and designation of what will be perceived as “higher education”.
30. With a view to the discussion on scope above, the Register Committee understood that the review panel clearly did not confirm whether ECTE's criteria for Certificate in Theology, Diploma in Theology and Postgraduate Certificate in Theology are correctly aligned with the QF-EHEA. As noted above, the quotes provided by ECTE from its Certification Framework cannot replace an external panel's analysis of the alignment in theory and practice.
31. As the Register Committee considers the accreditation of such programmes fully pertinent to the application (see above), this necessarily leads to a conclusion of non-compliance with ESG 2.1 as well.
32. The QF-EHEA further expects that students “have demonstrated knowledge and understanding in a field of study” upon completion of their studies. In general, ECTE's standards state that “theology” was the field of study they refer to. [...]
35. ECTE generally refers to the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) in its framework and communication. While the Register Committee saw this as a legitimate choice, the Committee underlined that the analysis and formal assessment in respect of ESG 2.1 always need to refer to the QF-EHEA descriptors as a benchmark, given that the QF-EHEA is the framework adopted by the EHEA and referred to in ESG 1.2.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – CTI – Compliance (2019) New standards published, but not reported to EQAR
CTI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords New standards published, but not reported to EQAR Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that following the site-visit of its external review, CTI prepared and published (in February 2019) a new version of its standards and guidelines (R&O) for the accreditation of study programmes. While the revised R&O is expected to take into account the (minor) shortcomings identified by the panel in CTI’s coverage of ESG Part 1, these changes have not been included in the application to EQAR, nor reported via change report. The Register Committee therefore underlined that CTI is expected to report such substantial changes in its methodology immediately after they are adopted. CTI is thus expected to provide without delay a change report providing further information i.e. mapping of its new R&O against ESG Part 1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IEP – Compliance (2019) Part 1 reflected in the agency’s external QA
IEP
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 reflected in the agency’s external QA Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision of renewal of IEP’s registration, the Register Committee flagged for attention the extent to which the different elements of Part 1 of the ESG were reflected in the agency’s institutional evaluation reports. The Register Committee noted the review panel findings that show that IEP amended the guidelines for institutions as well as the guidelines for evaluation teams to directly reference 2015 ESG Part 1. The panel commended IEP’s efforts to analyse reports and to provide clear guidance on implementing the ESG standard 2.1. Having considered the mapping of ESG part I and the analysis of the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – SQAA – Compliance (2019) Addressing IQA
SQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing IQA Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “Register, the Committee flagged for consideration whether SQAA paid greater attention to higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems. The Register Committee considered that the revisions of SQAA's standards and the shift to institutional accreditation addressed the flag.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2018) Insufficiently addressing ESG Part 1 in cyclical audits
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Insufficiently addressing ESG Part 1 in cyclical audits Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “ The Committee, however, noted that the cyclical audit does not include consideration of ESG 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5, as indicated by the panel's comments[...]. While NOKUT stated that these standards were anyway checked in the programme or institutional accreditation, the Committee considered that universities – once they obtained self-accrediting power – only undergo cyclical audits. As a result, these standards were not regularly considered for universities.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2018) Issues in aligning EQA activities to ESG Part 1
EAEVE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Issues in aligning EQA activities to ESG Part 1 Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that the review panel's analysis that the approach adopted by EAEVE for aligning the ESEVT SOP to the ESG 2015 Part 1 might be based on some misconceptions and lead to overlaps or omissions. The Committee understood that this was due to the fact that the ESG Part 1 standards are “added on” to the existing standards, which, however, also cover a number of issues covered by ESG Part 1. The Committee also took note of the panel's analysis that the ESG elements are not always addressed fully consistently in reports.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – PKA – Compliance (2019) Alignment of PKA standards not sufficiently ensured against Part 1 of the ESG
PKA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Alignment of PKA standards not sufficiently ensured against Part 1 of the ESG Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The panel noted that criteria for programme evaluation are in line with Part 1 of the ESG. However, the panel expressed concerns with the opinion giving process as the alignment with some standards of the ESG (i.e. 1.2, 1.4) was much weaker or some standards (i.e. ESG 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9) were not specifically represented within PKA’s methodology for this procedure. The agency explained in its statement to the review report that PKA has requested the Minister to extend the scope of information on the proposed regulation in the opinion giving process for study programme, and that the request was accepted in September
2018. PKA further detailed in its Substantive Change Report the new criteria adopted in December 2018 for granting permission to provide a degree programme. The Register Committee took note of the detailed criteria and confirmed that the new assessment framework addresses the standards from Part 1 ofthe ESG more comprehensively. In light of the enacted changes, the Register Committee concluded that PKA now complies with standard 2.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ANVUR – Partial compliance (2020) Aspects of ESG 1.1 – 1.10 insuficiently covered.
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Aspects of ESG 1.1 – 1.10 insuficiently covered. Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/02/2020)
RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that ANVUR fully integrates Part 1 of the ESG in AVA procedures, but that AFAM and PhD accreditation procedures cover only some aspects of ESG 1.1 – 1.10. In its additional representation ANVUR explained that AFAM and PhD accreditation procedures are limited in scope due to the existing Italian legal framework. ANVUR further added that it had already taken steps to integrate aspects of ESG 1.1 - 1.10 in these procedures by revising its own methodologies and guidelines for AFAM procedures and by testing its new preliminary evaluation protocol for PhD Programmes during two institutional visits. The Register Committee welcomed that ANVUR has intensified its dialogue with the relevant Ministry in order to review the appropriate regulations for its AFAM and PhD procedures, but considered that the changes have not yet been enacted and the agency has thus not yet fully addressed its compliance with ESG 2.1 in practice.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ANECA – Compliance (2018) OK. Part 1 reflected in one of the agency’s external QA
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords OK. Part 1 reflected in one of the agency’s external QA Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the last review of ANECA, the Register Committee flagged for attention the processes and criteria used in the ACCREDITA programme and how they take into account the existence and effectiveness of internal quality assurance in line with Part 1 of the ESG. The Register Committee considered the panel’s detailed accounts of how ANECA ensures the meeting of this criterion in all its procedures, including the international projects it has engaged in and noted that the regular review and assessment of the effectiveness of the procedures provided re-assurance and certainty to stakeholders on the quality of higher education in Spain”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ANQA – Compliance (2017) Part 1 reflected in ANQA’s criteria
ANQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 reflected in ANQA’s criteria Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (24/04/2024)
RC decision Compliance “The review panel provided a mapping table between ANQA's criteria (for institutional accreditation and for programme accreditation) and Part 1 of the ESG. The Register Committee requested the panel to elaborate on its analysis and findings as to how the different standards of ESG Part 1 are reflected in ANQA's criteria. The Committee appreciated the explanations provided, noted that the panel had reviewed ANQA's institutional accreditation reports and came to the conclusion that all standards were reflected in the same measure.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that the decision-making procedure of the Accreditation Council does not give any special consideration to the effectiveness of internal quality assurance process e.g. by linking the varying progress made by institutions in the development of IQA to the three possible final outcomes. While the panel found that IQAA’s approach reflects the early stages of its development, the panel recommended a stronger focus on the effectiveness of internal quality assurance in IQAA’s accreditation methodology as well as a refining of accreditation standards on student-centred learning (ESG 1.3) so that they give more consideration to how the concept is translated into pedagogical approaches and assessment practices; and more consideration to the primary responsibility of institutions for quality in its interpretation (ESG 1.9). The RC noticed shortcomings in addressing the effectiveness of internal QA processes in its institutional and specialised accreditation procedure and the need for a refining of its standards,”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AI – Compliance (2016) Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion Register Committee noted that it should receive attention how AI takes into account the effectiveness of institutional quality assurance arrangements in relation to study programmes and has therefore flagged this matter.The Register Committee noted that since its last review, AI has shifted from performing programme reviews to institutional accreditations and that the accreditation of programmes is expected to fade out by
2019. Since a positive outcome of institutional accreditation means that the institution is mature enough to take the responsibility for the quality assurance of the programmes they offer, the Register Committee concluded that through institutional accreditation AI now takes into account the effectiveness of internal quality assurance and has therefore addressed the flag.”
Full decision: see agency register entry