Precedents database
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ACQUIN – Compliance (2016) Criteria applied
ACQUIN
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 (21/11/2024)
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AAQ – Compliance (2016) Methodologies under revision at the time of the renewal
AAQ
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2023) Insufficient coverage of ESG 2.1
NOKUT
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Standards for accreditation
IAAR
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 (21/11/2024)
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ECCE – Compliance (2017) Alignment of the ECCE’s criteria with the ESG Part 1
ECCE
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 (21/11/2024)
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ACPUA – Compliance (2016) Addressing IQA
ACPUA
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 (21/11/2024)
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – NVAO – Compliance (2023) coverage of ESG Part1
NVAO
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IEP – Compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
IEP
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – QQI – Compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
QQI
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ECTE – Partial compliance (2023) Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers
ECTE
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AHPGS – Partial compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
AHPGS
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 Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found that AHPGS only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard, as the ESG Part 1 was not properly addressed in their external reviews outside Germany.
9. The Committee understood that in order to address these issues, AHPGS revised its handbooks for reviews abroad. Nevertheless, the Committee understood by the analysis of the panel, that the Handbook for Institutional Evaluations does not address standards 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 sufficiently.
10. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, that programme accreditation reports were in line with ESG Part 1, except one which did not follow AHPGS’s own criteria in full.
11. In a statement of the report (of 2024-05-17), AHPGS explained that in order to address the shortcomings underlined by the panel, it revised its handbooks for programme and institutional accreditation outside Germany.
12. The Committee welcomed the changes made by AHPGS. The Committee was, however, unable to conclude whether the adopted changes are implemented in practice without further panel insight and therefore they remain to be reviewed within the next external review of the agency. The Register Committee, therefore, concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency remains partially compliant with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AAQ – Partial compliance (2021) Using feedback for improving methodologies
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2021 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Using feedback for improving methodologies Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee welcomed the diverse methods used by the agency
for gathering feedback from different stakeholders, but could
not confirm that the reflections are efficiently and systematically used in the
improvement of the activities. The findings indicate that the
feedback is only sporadically used in the improvement of the agency’s
external QA activities.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AKAST – Compliance (2020) stakeholder involvement in the development of methodology
AKAST
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement in the development of methodology Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (21/11/2024)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee was unclear how the agency has developed its accreditation criteria and whether stakeholders were involved in the design of AKAST methodologies and has therefore asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that Germany’s new legal framework defines the procedures for QA agencies carrying out their accreditations within Germany and that the German Accreditation Council (GAC) is entrusted with overseeing this process. The GAC has issued reporting templates and defined the structure of review reports as well as self-evaluation reports for higher education institutions, following the criteria established in the Specimen Degree, which follow the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – NEAA – Compliance (2018) flexibility of the accreditaiton system
NEAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords flexibility of the accreditaiton system Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “While concurring with the panel's conclusion that NEAA complies with the standard, the Register Committee underlined the suggestion by the panel that NEAA should explore ways to make the accreditation system more flexible.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – MAB – Compliance (2019) fitness for purpose of doctoral schools EQA
MAB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords fitness for purpose of doctoral schools EQA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “Considering the fitness for purpose of external QA processes, the Register Committee noted the panel’s concerns with the effectiveness of the practice of evaluating doctoral schools every six months. In its additional representation HAC explained that the biannual checking of compliance with criteria for doctoral programmes has now been discontinued and that a new approach and criteria have been developed, which are expected to be finalised in autumn.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) involvement of stakeholders (students)
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords involvement of stakeholders (students) Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel’s analysis showed that while IAAR involved a range of stakeholders in the ongoing review of the agency’s methodology, the panel found no evidence that student representative bodies had been consulted. The panel added that student involvement in IAAR’s relevant consultative and decision-making bodies was minimal.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AEQES – Compliance (2017) stakeholder involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report demonstrated that, based on the national legislation as the main framework, AEQES has developed its own methodological framework, procedures and criteria in consultation with the key stakeholders”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – GAC – Compliance (2022) no ownership or full responsibility resting with a single actor, consequences for improvement
GAC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords no ownership or full responsibility resting with a single actor, consequences for improvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (05/10/2022)
RC decision Compliance “9. The panel noted that no actor had ownership or full responsibility for the entire accreditation system and process, since the specimen decree appoints specific responsibilities to both GAC and the agencies.
10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the panel as to how that impacted continuous improvement and development. The panel noted that opportunities for improvements were discussed actively; the ongoing review of the Specimen Decree was an example of that. The panel, however, saw a lack of GAC itself assuming a more proactive, coordinating role and taking responsibility for the system as a whole; this would be reasonable given its unique and pivotal position.
11. The Register Committee concluded that continuous improvement seems to be ensured despite the distributed responsibilities and thus concurred with the panel's conclusion that GAC complies with standard 2.2; the issues related to GAC's role and strategy are considered under standard 3.1 below.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria;
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria; Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the design of AKKORK’s methodology of external QA procedures, the panel noted that the aims of the different activities were not clearly differentiated and that there were inconsistencies between the different language versions of the AKKORK ‘s website (English and Russian). In its additional representation the agency responded that it has made revisions to the information on its website. While the Register Committee could verify the publication of the procedures, the Committee further noted that the agency also has ‘on offer’ the activity quality assurance of educational programmes on the level of higher education and remains to demonstrate that the activity has been defined and designed to achieve the objectives set for it, as required by the standard. The panel further commented on the lack of involvement of external stakeholders, apart from the representatives from its own bodies, in the design and continuous improvement of the offered procedures. The agency commented in its additional representation that it has developed a Regulation on collaboration with partners designed to be implemented in AKKORK’s daily routine. The Register Committee welcomed the thorough work in the development of a cooperation regulation with stakeholders, but could not confirm that the Regulation is already in effect as no evidence of the stakeholders' engagement was provided for in the recent substantive changes introduced by the agency. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – evalag – Partial compliance (2019) Involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes.
evalag
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that the processes and criteria for evalag’s work outside of the German accreditation system are designed by the Foundation Board. Based on the analysis by the review panel the Committee understood that students have little involvement in designing evalag’s own processes and are also not involved in the Foundation Board (see p. 30).The involvement of students in developing the international accreditation and evaluation processes was a recommendation from the previous ESG review of evalag in 2014, but has not yet been addressed.While the Register Committee welcomed evalag’s commitment expressed in its statement on the review report, no changes have been made as yet. The Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of substantial compliance, but considered that evalag only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry