Precedents database

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (26/04/2025)
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

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

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Criteria applied
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“While clearly addressing how ACQUIN's criteria for programme accreditation and system accreditation address the elements described in ESG 1.1 – 1.10, the review report did not discuss in detail how the criteria used in ACQUIN’s other activities within the scope of the ESG correspond to ESG Part 1. Since there was no explicit mapping provided by ACQUIN or the review panel, the Register Committee sought clarification from the review panel chair. The Register Committee considered the panel's explanation (letter of 16/11/16) that the panel had reviewed in detail the criteria applied in ACQUIN's various activities, and established that ESG Part 1 was reflected in them.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Methodologies under revision at the time of the renewal
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are clearly addressed in AAQ’s procedures, with two exceptions: the review report noted that AAQ’s methodologies for evaluations and accreditation of basic medical training are currently under revision. The Register Committee underlined that AAQ is required to make (a) Substantive Change Report(s) once the revisions have been completed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Insufficient coverage of ESG 2.1
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Looking at systemic level, the

different regulations touch upon the three particular standards of Part 1 of the ESG. However, the full coverage of all the standards of Part 1 is still not ensured through agency’s own criteria. Partial coverage of aspects through national legislation does not substitute coverage through external QA procedures and coverage of the ESG part 1 by higher education institutions’ internal QA is a prerequisite for EQA being able to assess their implementation”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Standards for accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee was unclear on whether IAAR used specific sets of standards for the above-mentioned accreditations and, if so, whether the panel had addressed their compliance with Part 1 of the ESG. The Committee therefore requested the panel to clarify this matter (letter of 25/04/2017). In its clarification letter (of 06/05/2017) the panel stated that IAAR had developed detailed sets of standards that follow a similar framework as in the case of IAAR’s regular accreditation procedure. The panel added that while the review did not permit a full enquiry into the variations of the field specific standards the panel was satisfied that the procedure was similarly implemented across all sets of standards and that they were published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Alignment of the ECCE’s criteria with the ESG Part 1
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee further noted that the standards have not been amended following publication of the revised ESG and that no specific mapping or analysis was carried out on how ECCE’s criteria and procedures address ESG Part 1. Based on its own analysis and interviews carried out, the panel concluded that Part 1 of the ESG was “transversally” reflected within ECCE’s standards. The Register Committee requested the panel to further elaborate on this matter. In its response letter (of 15/11/2016) the panel stated that the focus of the analysis was the link between external and internal QA and that this was well established. The panel further added that “whilst it could not be demonstrated on a one to one basis that the standards 1.1 - 10 were addressed, the panel satisfied itself that the link existed”. In the additional representation, ECCE provided a mapping of the link between the ESG Part 1 and its own standards. The Register Committee considered the mapping and noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are addressed in the agency's criteria and processes for institutions/programmes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Addressing IQA
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (26/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“Given that the standards relating to design and approval of programmes (1.2), student-centred learning, teaching and assessment (1.3), student admission, progression, recognition, certification (1.4) and ongoing monitoring and periodic review of programmes (1.9) do not seem to be considered in ACPUA’s institutional-level activities (according to the table on alignment with the ESG) the Register Committee asked the panel (letter of 04/11/2016) to confirm whether they are in fact addressed within ACPUA’s programme accreditation procedures.It its response (letter of 20/11/2016) the Chair of the panel confirmed that the programme accreditation procedures (ex-ante accreditation, follow-up and ex-post accreditation) touch upon all standards of Part 1. As the review took place soon after the publication of the new ESG, the panel could not sufficiently well verify the focus on the new issues brought by ESG 2015, i.e. ESG 1.3 student-centred learning has not been explicitly stated in ACPUA’s evaluation criteria but the panel found there is significant ongoing discussion on how to best approach its inclusion. he Register Committee noted that although ACPUA performs several types of reviews in collaboration with ANECA or with other regional quality assurance agencies (i.e. DOCENTIA, AUDIT reviews) and thus it might not be in the position to modify the criteria and processes, the agency retains full responsibility for how it addresses Part 1 of the ESG in its own procedures that are carried out autonomously irrespective of whether such procedures are voluntary or obligatory in their nature”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	coverage of ESG Part1
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee noted that a protocol for the assessment of transnational education in the Netherlands (NL) came into effect in

2018. The Committee however could not find any information on whether NVAO-NL has addressed the standards of ESG Part 1 (ESG 1.1-ESG 1.10) in its new protocol and has therefore sought further clarification from the panel.

12. The panel explained (see clarification letter) that a transnational education programme may be provided on the condition that the programme abroad is equal to the one accredited in the Netherlands. This may only concern programmes that have already been accredited in the Netherlands. Given this condition, the review panel explained that the study programmes abroad follow the same accreditation protocol as the programmes accredited in the Netherlands.

13. The Register Committee understands that ESG Part 1 has been verified by the panel for the renewed 2018 NVAO-NL assessment framework and noted that a clear link between the institution’s internal and the NVAO’s external quality assurance procedures was ensured.

14. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standards 2.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Internal quality assurance
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. The review report showed that the coverage of the particular standards is ensured with guiding questions for institutions and for review teams. However, the evaluation reports are still not checked with a specific focus on how ESG is covered by the IEP Secretariat.

8. While the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be compliant with the standard, it highlighted the panel’s recommendation on importance of systematic signposting of ESG Part 1 criteria in the evaluation reports.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Internal quality assurance
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. In its previous decision the Register Committee found the agency to be compliant with ESG 2.1. As per the

Policy on Targeted Reviews, ESG 2.1 shall always be part of the external review process. The Register Committee noted that all procedures share an underlying framework infrastructure for all of it external quality assurance activities that reflects well the standards of ESG Part 1.

10. The Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that QQI continues to be compliant with ESG 2.1.

11. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ASIIN
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. ECTE was found to be non-compliant with ESG 2.1 following its initial review (see report of 2021-08-06) and the following Register Committee decision of 2022-06-28.

12. The Register Committee’s first concern was whether all ESG Part 1 were clearly enshrined in the ECTE standards for their new integrated review, covering both institutional and programme accreditation.

13. In its focused review, the panel analysed and confirmed that the integrated standards “cover all ESG I criteria”, based also on an analysis of the five accreditation procedures that took place since January 2022; these procedures featured programmes of various levels, profiles and types of providers. The Register Committee therefore found the issue addressed.

14. The Register Committee’s second concern was whether qualifications awarded by alternative providers refer to the correct level of the QF-EHEA.

15. The Register Committee found that the review panel's analysis was very generic containing no specific insights or findings on whether the concern was addressed. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by the statement that ECTE Standards and Guidelines apply “uniformly to all ECTE programme levels (here 5-7), all types of providers (Higher Education Institutions as well as Alternative Providers) and all programme orientations (research and practice-oriented programmes)” given the fact that the learning outcomes in the Certification Framework differ between levels.

16. In its addendum to the report (submitted May 2, 2023) the panel clarified that all programmes accredited by the ECTE are classified as higher education and match the QF-EHEA descriptors, including practice-oriented programmes. The panel further explained that their formulation “of uniformly applied” meant to emphasise the use of one framework for different levels, in the way that programmes use one framework for evaluating different levels of programmes.

17. The Register Committee further found it hard to understand why the panel did not discuss the change of ECTE’s descriptors given the significant reduction in its detail and specificity. The Committee thus requested a comprehensive assessment on how ECTE’s subject-specific descriptors are considered in its new Certification Framework and on how the broad QF-EHEA descriptors themselves has impacted ECTE’s accreditation in practice.

18. The panel explained that they have not been aware of a different version of ECTE Certification Framework (earlier version published in 2019, analysed version published in September 2022)1, and thus only commented on the latest version.

19. In the view of the panel, ECTE’s documentation is consistently clear in requiring the application of ECTE standard B.2.1 (that concerns the application of QF-EHEA).

20. In its addendum to the report, the panel further provided an analysis of 16 reviews covering Short Cycle, First Cycle and Second Cycle qualifications delivered by alternative providers. The panel’s finding show that alternative providers have been specifically asked to link the learning outcomes of their programmes to the Dublin Descriptors and the associated higher education cycle.

21. The panel also checked whether ECTE evaluates the qualifications awarded by alternative providers at the correct QF-EHEA level and whether the intended learning outcomes and qualifications were in conformity with nationally agreed standards for theological education.

22. Following the consideration of the additional documentation, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that ECTE is, in practice, examining whether qualifications at different levels match the QF-EHEA level.

23. Considering the effectiveness of how ECTE addresses these standards within its review reports (B2.1 and B5.1), the Committee found there’s a wide variation in the level of detail and specificity, that may hinder the successful application and interpretation. The Committee thus found that this concern was only partially addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry