Precedents database
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – NVAO – Compliance (2023) deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report
NVAO
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision Compliance “15. The Register Committee noted that NVAO-NL may modify a recommendation for a positive outcome in a panel report, although it has never so far questioned this. The Committee was unclear on the situations that may lead to a deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report and whether such deviations are documented.
16. In its clarification response (of 10/02/2023) the review panel explained that NVAO-NL may occasionally seek additional information from panels and in a limited number of cases, and after due deliberation may expand conditions or deviate in a minor sense from the panel’s advice. Such changes may be done by NVAO-NL to reduce the subjectivity of reports and ensure the consistency of recommendations as well as of the final outcome. Deviations from the final recommendation of the panel have not happened yet, but according to the agency’s procedure these changes are documented in the final published decision by NVAO-NL.
17. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standard 2.5.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ECCE – Partial compliance (2023) Methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period inconsistent
ECCE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period inconsistent Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “12. The Committee noted from the panel’s report that it is now clear what level of compliance a programme must achieve to receive the full 8-year accreditation period. At the same time, the definition of shorter accreditation periods remained unclear: the panel also confirmed in its clarification that there are no specific criteria or guidelines that determine by how much the period gets shortened.
13. In its additional representation the agency explained its methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period. While the Register Committee found a clear reasoning in the agency’s response, the Committee could not understand why the cited information (i.e. table and explanation provided) was not integrated in the agency’s procedures i.e., Accreditation Procedures and Standards. In particular, the Committee found the provided information on the length of the accreditation cycle i.e., of five years, to be completely missing from the agency’s procedure for re-accreditation (see Accreditation Procedures and Standards 5.3 – November 2019 Section 3.2.4.2.1).
14. Given the inconsistencies in the agency’s explanations and the presentation of ECTE’s criteria in its own procedures, the Register Committee was not persuaded that the agency ensured a consistent application of its criteria in its decision making.
15. The Committee also considered that this issue was amplified by the fact that there is no decision document (see also ESG 2.6), i.e., the Quality Assurance & Accreditation Committee’s (QAAC’s) considerations and argumentation on why a certain length of accreditation period was decided are currently not recorded in any public document.
16. The Register Committee thus remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that ECCE only partially complied with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2023) Inconsistent application of criteria
EAEVE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Inconsistent application of criteria Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (18/07/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “The current set up brings confusion not only for the higher education institutions, but also for the
agency itself. The Committee found that agency’s criteria are not always applied consistently in the reviews and this leads to different standards being covered in the reports. During the clarification call, the agency explained that the SOP 2023 will be stabile - only reviewed and amended after 3 years again. The Committee welcomed these changes but found that the agency still enables usage of different SOPs – a practice that can lead to different outcomes and inconsistencies in the conclusions of its reports. This is especially problematic considering the regulatory function of the agency’s reviews for veterinary education.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – CTI – Compliance (2024) Lack of clear deliberation rules
CTI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Lack of clear deliberation rules Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.
8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.
9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – IQAA – Partial compliance (2022) Publication of reports
IQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee learned that IQAA now publishes in full the decisions from institutional and programme accreditations, including the
negative ones. Even though the bulk of reports is public, this is not the case for all of them - the reports from the initial accreditation and the post-accreditation monitoring are still not published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – FIBAA – Compliance (2022) publication of all reports
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 07/02/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of all reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “14. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA and concluded that the agency at that time complied only partially with ESG 2.6. In response to the recommendation made in the previous review, the Register Committee learned that FIBAA is now publishing both the positive and negative reports on accreditation and certification processes from national as well as international activities, on its website.
15. The Register Committee therefore agreed with the panel’s conclusion, that FIBAA complies with standard 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACQUIN – Compliance (2021) Consistency in the content and publication of the reports
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/12/2021 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Consistency in the content and publication of the reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The agency publishes its reports on the website. The panel noted that, however, the structure of the reports and their publishing was not always consistent and that for some procedures the reports included summary information only. In their response to the review report, the agency explained that it now uses a template provided by GAC which enables a better structured and
standardised reporting. The agency is currently updating its database and
tackling the technical issues leading to an inconsistent report publishing. The Register Committee found that the agency has taken concrete
steps to address the issues related to the consistent drafting and publishing of its reports”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ZEvA – Compliance (2022) responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2022 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords responsibility to publish reports also when not submitted to GAC Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “23. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's conclusion that ZEvA complies with the standard; the Committee further underlined that ZEvA is responsible to ensure that all reports are ultimately published on its own website and on DEQAR, including those that are never submitted to GAC by the institution under review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) publication of negative reports
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (23/11/2024)
RC decision Compliance “While ACSUCYL publishes the results of its external evaluations, the Register Committee was unclear on whether the agency also makes public the assessment reports with a negative result. The Register Committee therefore sought further clarification from the panel. In its clarification response, the panel stated that according to ACSUCYL’s handbook, the assessment reports are published once the University Council, the body responsible for taking the formal decision concerning verification and modification of curricula takes its decision. The panel added that it does not have any indication to show that negative reports of this activity are not published (in case a decision is taken).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Publication of all reports
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of all reports Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s practice of ensuring the consistent publication of all external evaluation reports. In its additional information and additional representation to the review report the agency claimed that all its review reports and decisions were now published on its website, including the reports from its professional-public accreditation activity. The Register Committee could verify that with a few exceptions all of these reports are now published by the agency on its website i.e. links included under the Russian version of its agency’s website under Register of programmes. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – evalag – Compliance (2019) Publication of negative reports
evalag
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “When evalag’s registration was last renewed it was flagged for attention whether evalag has moved to publish reports where the accreditation decision was negative. The review panel observed that evalag has had no negative decisions so far. The panel nevertheless confirmed that evalag’s clear policy is to publish all reports regardless of the outcome; the panel had no doubts that a negative report will be published. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – A3ES – Compliance (2019) readability and accessibility of reports
A3ES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readability and accessibility of reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision for inclusion, the Register Committee flagged for attention the readability and accessibility of reports. Based on the review report the Register Committee noted that the agency has made good efforts to address the issue.The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel’s conclusion that A3ES complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) not all reports published in the past
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords not all reports published in the past Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “31. When AHPGS' registration was last renewed, the Register Committee flagged for attention whether AHPGS’ policy of publishing full reports for all reviews has been implemented consistently.
32. The review report analysed and concluded that AHPGS has consistently published full reports from all of its activities. The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – SQAA – Partial compliance (2019) publication of negative reports
SQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Review panel further noted that reports from initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome are not published and rightly stated that the publication of all reports is required by the ESG, in order to ensure full transparency. While SQAA's statement on the report held that all “reports (with the positive and negative outcomes)” were now accessible, it was not clear whether SQAA officially changed its policy to that effect. The Committee was unable to verify whether reports on initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome were now published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – NEAA – Partial compliance (2018) Publication of full reports
NEAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel noted that the expert groups' (EG) reports were “reflected” in the standing committee (SC) reports, but were not published as such. The panel clarified that the practice reflected NEAA's “division of labour”, that there was no substantial difference between the EG and SC reports, and that the SC was not able to include in its report “other findings than those of the EG”. […]In its statement on the review report, NEAA noted that it was now publishing the full EG reports. This could, however, not be verified by the Register Committee as the reports are only available on the Bulgarian version of NEAA's website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – QAA – Compliance (2019) publication of reports and publication of the experts involved
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/03/2019 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports and publication of the experts involved Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The publication of review reports regarding Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged for attention when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Register Committee welcomed that regulations were changed to the effect that such reports are now published [...] the Register Committee noted that the composition of the panels for TNE review is not mentioned in the published report. The Committee therefore drew attention to the guidelines to ESG 2.6, which suggest that the members of the review panel should be listed in the review report.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – SKVC – Compliance (2017) Publication of reports
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the publication of reports corresponding to applications by new programmes and new licensing requests. The panel’s finding show that the evaluation reports for programme and institutional evaluations are published and accessible on the SKVC website, including the accreditation decisions (p. 40).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – FIBAA – Partial compliance (2017) Inconsistency in preparation of reports; publication of programme accreditation reports
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Inconsistency in preparation of reports; publication of programme accreditation reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that the practice of sending review reports to higher education institutions for approval after decisions have been made should be reconsidered as this is not standard practice. To ensure consistency in the preparation of reports, the panel underlined the need for clearer manuals. The panel also referred to the results of an analysis carried out by the Accreditation Council, which showed that a number of programme accreditation reports have not been published by FIBAA. The Register Committee noted the intention of FIBAA to improve its practice of publishing reports and considered that improvements have not yet been externally reviewed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AI – Compliance (2016) readibility and usefulness of reports
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readibility and usefulness of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged the readability and usefulness of accreditation reports for students and general audiences.The review panel noted that the agency still needs to improve the readability of reports and while the structure and format of AI reports are in general clear and concise they mostly serve the purpose of the accreditation decision.While the agency is compliant in terms of accessibility and publication of reports, the Register Committee noted that the readability of reports is limited to a specialised audience. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ZEvA – Compliance (2016) Publication of reports
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “Having been able to verify the publication of reports for certification and audit procedures the Register Committee was however unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of partial compliance and concluded that ZEvA is in fact compliant with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry