Precedents database
-
2.6 Reporting – ARACIS – Partial compliance (2023) reports sometime lacking depth of analysis, expert reports not always publlshed
ARACIS
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords reports sometime lacking depth of analysis, expert reports not always publlshed Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “7. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that the central part of the agency’s reports appears to be merely a check list “occasionally lacking depth of analysis and evidence-based material”. The panel further raised concerns with regards to the accessibility of reports on the ARACIS website, which the panel found somewhat challenging to navigate.
8. The Committee further noted that in the case of doctoral study programmes, study domain accreditation and study domain authorisation ARACIS does not publish the experts’ final proposals for decision. The Committee does not understand why the final proposal for decision/expert conclusion is left out, in particular since this is included in all other external quality assurance activities of ARACIS. The Register Committee underlined that this approach affects the transparency of the agency’s decision making processes in the case of third cycle reviews.
9. The Committee also found that for some of its external QA activities the agency had changed its approach from publishing the full expert report to only publishing a short excerpt of the expert report i.e., the second cycle study domain accreditation reports only include up to a one page excerpt from the expert review report. The Register Committee underlined that it can be of public interest to know the basis on which the final reports are being developed, and that the publication (at least as annex) of the full reports is important to ensure the transparency in the decision-making of the Council.
10. Based on the above raised concerns, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance and therefore concluded that ARACIS complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – SAAHE – Compliance (2023) publication of reports
SAAHE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (28/11/2023)
RC decision Compliance “9. The panel reported that it could not identify any clear links where the decisions and the evaluation reports of the review panels are being published on the agency’s website.
10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the agency (see minuted clarification) in order to understand the agency’s practice regarding the publication of reports and decision.
11. The agency explained (and presented) how the reports are being published on its website i.e. via links within a document uploaded on its website each time a new report is finalised. SAAHE further explained that the agency also publishes, the applications and self-assessment reports of higher education institutions undergoing review procedures. The agency is aware that the current way of publishing reports and decision is not ideal but explained that it was hesitant in making any changes during its review process.
12. The Register Committee sought further clarification on the lack of published reports in 2022 and
2023.
13. The agency explained that following a change in legislation, in 2021, all higher education institutions are required to undergo institutional accreditation and had to apply for such a review by the end of
2022. The agency clarified that while all 33 higher education institutions are have applied for an institutional accreditation, at the moment no procedure has yet been finalised. A pending decision by SAAHE’s Executive Board is expected in February 2024.(see minuted clarification)
14. Having considered the report and the clarification by the agency, the Committee concluded that despite the difficulty in accessing the links of published reports, that SAAHE has been publishing full reports and decisions on its website. The Register Committee underlined the recommendation by the panel to ensure the publishing of reports and decisions in a more accessible and informative way than the current practice.
15. The Register Committee noted that the agency is expected to inform the Register once it has concluded its first institutional accreditation procedure.
16. Having considered the review report and the clarification by the agency, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s judgement of partial compliance, and concluded that SAAHE complies with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – Unibasq – Partial compliance (2024) Publication of reports with negative outcomes, publication of expert panel reports
Unibasq
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports with negative outcomes, publication of expert panel reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 11-05- 2019), Unibasq was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it did not publish reports of its ex-ante accreditation resulting with a negative outcome. From the report, the Register Committee learned that the agency now publishes these reports too.
9. The Register Committee further learned that the preliminary and final review reports shared with the higher education institutions and the public do not include the expert panel reports; these reports are only available to the Unibasq’s Committees.
10. The Register Committee found that the agency addressed the concerns raised in its earlier decision regarding the publication of negative reports from its ex ante accreditation procedure. It, however, shared the panel’s concerns that the agency does not fully comply with this standard because of the lack of transparency regarding the expert panel reports.
11. 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
-
2.6 Reporting – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) publication of reports
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “39. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel, that the agency did not publish all of its reports from its programme and provider
accreditation procedures.
40. In its statement on the report, the agency informed that with the publication of the new manuals, as of January 2024 and January 2025 respectively, all accreditation reports and decisions will be published on its website. The Register Committee, however, could not find any recently
published reports when performing an additional check on the MFHEA’s website.
41. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that as of January 2024, all accreditation decisions are to be published on the MFHEA website
together with the expert panel reports. MFHEA further explained that “the reason no Provider Accreditation Reports have been found on MFHEA
website is that since this is a recent development, to date no provider accreditation have been finalised and therefore there were no provider
accreditation reports to publish” and that “with regards to programme accreditations there is a small number of reports which are ready. It is expected that actual publication will happen in January 2025…”.
42. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the planned actions by MFHEA to ensure that all reports and decisions are publicly available. The Committee found that, however, the presented actions are yet to be implemented in practice and once implemented, remain to be reviewed by
an external review panel.
43. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – CTI – Compliance (2024) Publication of full reports
CTI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “10. In the previous decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found CTI to be partially compliant with the standard as it only published summary of evaluation reports which lacked important details from the full reports.
11. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that a new template, which includes the full report, was introduced. Furthermore the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, since 2019, CTI started publishing in full all of its reports.
12. Having addressed the earlier concern regarding publication of full reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined the panel’s recommendations that the agency ensures that the reports are more analytical, their clarity and soundness are improved as well as their visibility on the agency's website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) publication of reports, negative
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports, negative Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. In its previous decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of publication of reports with negative results of its ex-ante verification of study programmes.
8. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA now publishes reports with negative and positive results of all evaluations processes except for reviews of universities for recognition on its website. From the report, the Committee learned that these reviews only occur by a request from the regional ministry and are sporadic. The Committee further understood that the agency is not authorised to publish the reports as this is in the remit of the regional parliament.
9. Given the improvements made in publication of the negative reports, the Register Committee could concur with the panel that the agency now complies with the standard. The Register Committee, nevertheless, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should raise the issue with the publication of the results of the reviews of universities for recognition with the regional authorities to ensure that these reports are made available to the public.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – SKVC – Compliance (2022) lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. The Register Committee shared the panel's reservations that the inability for higher education institutions in exile to use SKVC's internal appeals process is a shortcoming.
14. Given that this only concerns one single institution at the moment and no accreditation has taken place so far, the Committee, however, did not consider this shortcoming material enough to influence the conclusion per this standard and concurred with the panel's conclusion that SKVC complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – FINEEC – Partial compliance (2022) Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only
FINEEC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The institutions undergoing a review by FINEEC are limited to make an appeal only in a case of a negative
outcome.That the remarks on the review process are given in an informal manner.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AI – Partial compliance (2021) Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The appeals process remains to be led by an external body. The agency is not handling any formal complains or appeals itself.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – UKÄ – Partial compliance (2021) No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee
UKÄ
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “UKÄ has no formal complaints procedure in place (p. 34), even though the panel was confident that any issues stakeholders have, related to the work of the agency, are taken up by UKÄ. The report further discussed the advisory role of the appeals committee and the panel was concerned that this approach, paired with the fact that the committee cannot make recommendations how to correct potential errors, could undermine the authority of the appeals committee.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – QQI – Compliance (2019) Scope of the appeals system
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Scope of the appeals system Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's remark that the outcomes of cyclical institutional reviews can currently not be appealed, while noting thata provider “may still wish to challenge the findings in a way that would be better suited to an appeals process rather than a complaints process” (p. 33).The Register Committee has generally understood the standard to require that all results of external quality assurance processes be open to appeal, hence including reports that do not include “categorical decisions”.The Committee therefore underlined that QQI should consider widening the scope of its appeal system in monitoring the fitness for purpose of the current arrangements, per the panel's remarks. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – EVALAG – Compliance (2019) Independence of the appeals committee
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Independence of the appeals committee Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision to renew evalag’s registration the Register Committee flagged for attention how evalag has followed up the recommendation to separate the bodies in charge of appeals from the bodies deciding on accreditation, and to rule out parallel memberships.The review panel confirmed the independence of the appeals committee from the evalag decision-making body for accreditation. The panel further reported that parallel memberships are now ruled out. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) brief procedure for complaints and appeals
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords brief procedure for complaints and appeals Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “33. […] there was only a brief procedure for complaints and appeals, and that the process was not fully known by the universities concerned; the Appeals Committee was not yet appointed, neither another body that deals with complaints and appeals.
34. [...] a statutory change, introducing the legal basis of the Appeals Committee, had entered into force and that the Appeals Committee had subsequently been appointed.
35. Having considered the additional information, the Register Committee concurred with the review panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2018) Absence of a formal complaints procedure
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of a formal complaints procedure Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's analysis that the complaints procedure “is less clearly defined”. While the Committee acknowledged that the prevailing culture of dialogue meant that institutions were aware of their opportunities to voice complaints, it considered that the possibility to complain and the related procedures should be explicitly spelled out, e.g. in the relevant guides for institutions, as required by the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ANECA – Compliance (2018) Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee also noted that appeals are not made available in case of MONITOR procedure […]. The review panel stated as the activity has a supportive /developmental nature and that no decisions are taken on its basis no appeals can be issues. The panel noted that it had discussed the complaints (and appeals) procedures with key stakeholders, who expressed their satisfaction with the functioning of the processes and confirmed that the agency considered all appeals and complaints according to its policy and within a reasonable time-frame.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – SKVC – Partial compliance (2017) Absence of a complaints procedure
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of a complaints procedure Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “While the Register Committee noted that appeals’ procedures are well defined, accessible and handled adequately, the Register Committee noted that SKVC’s methodologies and principles do not cover complaints.The panel did not find how higher education institutions can raise issues of concerns or how they are handled by SKVC in a professional and consistent manner.The Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel for the development of a specific complaints procedure that should be made easily accessible to higher education institutions.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal.
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal. Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel considered that the body deciding on appeals should not be identical to the body that made the decision being appealed, but identified an overlap in the case of ASHE. It further noted that there is no appeals procedure (internal to ASHE) for initial accreditation, but only a possibility to appeal decisions in a court.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that IAAR established a commission to handle appeals and complaints in late 2015 that consists of a number of members representing national representatives of employer bodies. The review panel formed the view that the membership of the Commission was not well aligned with its role and purpose, having the focus almost exclusively on employer representatives. The panel further added the potential conflict of interest considering the overlapping membership of the Appeals Commission that of the Accreditation Council. The panel recommended the broadening of the Commission’s membership and a separation from the members of the Accreditation Council”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ASIIN – Compliance (2017) No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords No possibility to appeal in cases where the review does not end in a judgment Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Committee noted that for the accreditation procedures the appeals procedure is regulated in the statute and in the board of complaints’ rules of procedure but that there is no clearly defined appeals procedure for evaluations and other external QA procedures not resulting in a formal decisionIn the additional representation, ASIIN explained that it had clarified that its regular complaints procedures, applicable to accreditation procedures so far, is also applied to certification procedures and in type-1 evaluation procedures. The Register Committee confirmed that this is indeed clarified in public documents.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AAQ – Partial compliance (2016) Limited scope of complaints
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Limited scope of complaints Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that AAQ and SAR provide a formalised complaints process for higher education institutions. The external review panel was, however, “more critical of the limited subject scope of the complaints procedure because, (…), higher education institutions can currently only complain about SAR’s decisions and not about possible errors in the implementation of the procedure” (p. 41).”
Full decision: see agency register entry