Precedents database
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NQA – Partial compliance (2019) Publication of the mission or goals of the agency, stakeholder involvement in the governance of the agency (incl students) and separation of consulting and assessment activities
NQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Publication of the mission or goals of the agency, stakeholder involvement in the governance of the agency (incl students) and separation of consulting and assessment activities Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (17/05/2019)
RC decision Partial compliance “n its additional representation the agency explained that it would be unwise from a commercial point of view, as a private organisation, to publish its strategic goals. The agency stated that it has chosen a more dynamic course, so that NQA is able to adopt swiftly if/when radical changes such as the introduction of institutional accreditations in the system occur. While the Register Committee understood that publishing explicit strategic goals might not be the most favourable option for NQA, that the agency could nevertheless publicly communicate (in broader terms) its mission statement along with its goals and objectives. The agency added that its yearly management review includes strategies based on its mission statement and goals. In its additional representation NQA stated that the agency meets with a diverse group of university employees (e.g. CEO’s, quality assurance officers, management of degree programmes and teachers), the NVAO, the Inspectorate and other quality assurance agencies. NQA emphasised that the results of such meetings are translated into the work of the agency, i.e. in its strategic goals, management and review processes. The Register Committee welcomed such consultations, but underscored the ESG understanding of stakeholders, which cover all actors within an institution and therefore also students. The Committee thus underlined the panel’s recommendation to ensure stakeholder involvement by establishing regular interactions with all relevant groups of interest. Concerning the separation between NQA’s external QA activities the panel reported that one of the measures adopted by NQA was to ensure that staff members involved in assessment activities do not provide consultancy to the same institution. In most of the examples provided to the panel, the consultancy projects were completed by the Director. This was regarded by the panel as a potential problem in ensuring a clear distinction between NQA’s consultancy and external quality assurance activities. From the review panel’s analysis the Committee noted that “NQA attempts to separate as much as possible quality assurance activities from consultancy services” and that “throughout the interviews, there was no feeling of a lack of independence”. The Committee further noted that while the panel concluded the agency is “substantially compliant” re. independence, the panel found it necessary to recommend the establishment of stricter internal procedures in order to further separate consulting and assessment activities. In particular, the panel suggested to avoid performing consultancy activities to institutions NQA reviews, at least during a certain time span. This would be in line with Annex 5 of the Use and Interpretation of the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ANECA – Partial compliance (2018) separation of consultancy and EQA activities, addressing international activities as activities within the scope of the ESG
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords separation of consultancy and EQA activities, addressing international activities as activities within the scope of the ESG Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (31/07/2018)
Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that in its understanding all international activities of ANECA were advisory in nature whereby ANECA acted essentially as a consultant/project partner and did not carry out external quality assurance activities (evaluation, accreditation, audits) abroad. The panel did not provide any further information on how the agency ensures a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work. The agency provided a detailed report on its international activities, explained and that they follow similar procedures to that of the AUDIT and ACCREDITA evaluations carried out in Spain and confirmed they are within the scope of the ESG. Tthe Register Committee could now verify the publication of criteria for evaluation and the publication of all (summary) reports of the international activities. The Committee acknowledged the steps taken by ANECA to clarify the nature of its international activities, but noted that these activities were not considered by an external review panel (in particular in considering compliance with ESG Part 2). The Register Committee further noted that it could not analyse with full certainty how the agency separates its external QA activities within the scope of the ESG from the consultancy projects it carries out.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – SKVC – Compliance (2017) Separation of external QA and consultancy activities
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of external QA and consultancy activities Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that SKVC provides consulting to both the government and higher education institutions. While the panel found that SKVC’s methodologies and guidelines clearly delineate its tasks and responsibilities, the panel stated that SKVC could benefit from reducing its guidance role in producing self-evaluation reports and in offering detailed and demanding rules and regulations for higher education. the Committee underlined that SKVC is expected to demonstrate a clear separation between its external quality assurance and its consulting and guidance role, in particular considering the agency’s assistance in producing self-evaluation reports. The Committee drew SKVC's attention to the guiding principles set out in Annex 5 to the Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQAS – Partial compliance (2017) distinction between accreditation and consultation not fully publicly documented
AQAS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords distinction between accreditation and consultation not fully publicly documented Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “When confirming eligibility of the application, the Register Committee requested AQAS to clarify the relation between AQAS e.V. and AQAS ARCH, as well as the separation of external quality assurance procedures from consultancy services. The Register Committee took note of the clarification that AQAS ARCH did not engage in any activities within the scope of the ESG, but was engaging only in consultancy and project work, and welcomed the clarity provided. The Register Committee further welcomed AQAS' clear statement that it agreed “that the work of an accreditation agency in a particular procedure, be it programme or institutional accreditation, is incompatible with a preceding (or current) consultancy at the same university” and that “this incompatibility naturally includes organisations which are connected operationally with the agency” (statement on the review report); consequently, “AQAS e.V. cannot accredit the same organisation that received consultancy services through AQAS ARCH GmbH” (idem). The review panel, however, noted that these principles do not seem to be clearly documented in a published official policy document of AQAS and thus recommended that “AQAS should, in form of the formal resolution, define the distinction between accreditation and consultation, between ESG and non-ESG activities and between AQAS and AQAS ARCH” (review report, p. 12).
The Register Committee concluded that AQAS was able to explain that it appropriately separates its different areas of activity, while the details and consequences of this separation are not yet fully publicly documented.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQU – Compliance (2017) Separation of QA and consultancy activities
AQU
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of QA and consultancy activities Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that AQU carried out one training activity in
2011. The review panel found that such activities should be considered as consultancy /support activities and that they should be differentiated more cautiously from the quality assurance activities which are provided by AQU Catalunya. (Review report, pg. 18).The Register Committee concurred with the panel that such consultancy activities should be clearly separated from external QA activities, in particular when those activities are carried out for the same higher education institution. The Committee drew AQU's attention to the guiding principles set out in Annex 5 to the Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG and underlined that AQU is expected to make a substantive change report should it resume the same or similar consultancy-type activities offered to higher education institution.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ANQA – Compliance (2017) cosultancy/training to HEIs
ANQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords cosultancy/training to HEIs Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In connection with ANQA's budget, the panel noted that ANQA is carrying out consultancy activities on a minor scale. As it was not specifically analysed in the report, the Register Committee sought clarification from the panel on potential conflicts of interest arising from consultancy work. The Register Committee understood from the panel's response that ANQA provides collective training opportunities to Armenian higher education institutions, but does not render services to individual institutions, and that, therefore, there is no specific potential for conflicts of interest.The Register Committee, however, underlined that in case ANQA provides consultancy to individual institutions in the future it would have to implement appropriate policies to prevent that ANQA accredits the same institution to which it rendered consultancy services.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – FINEEC – Compliance (2017) Scope of the thematic analysis (evaluations)
FINEEC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Scope of the thematic analysis (evaluations) Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the eligibility verification (see letter to FINEEC of 12/02/2016) the Register Committee considered FINEEC’s thematic evaluations to be activities within the scope of the ESG, as far as they concern individual institutions or programmes of higher education. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that thematic evaluations have been paused after the merger of FINHEEC, and that the agency intends, according to its National Plan for Education Evaluations to reintroduce these evaluations between 2016-2019. […] the panel stated that thematic evaluations were found to be outside the scope of the ESG. The panel noted that thematic evaluations did not evaluate individual higher education institutions (or parts of them) or programmes, nor did they address the effectiveness of internal quality assurance as defined in Part 1 of the ESG. The panel, however, added that – although these evaluations are outside the scope of the ESG – the procedures and practices applied by FINEEC largely comply with the ESG. While the Register Committee concurred with the panel in that thematic evaluations in general fall outside of the scope of the ESG. The Register Committee, however, noted that at least in one particular case, i.e. the thematic evaluation of education in the maritime sector (2015-2017), FINEEC (also) addressed the quality management of individual education units and that the results of the FINEEC evaluation will serve as a basis for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to decide on the right of the educational establishments in the maritime field to issue certificates of competency. The Register Committee concluded that thematic evaluations are within the scope of the ESG only if they apply to the three cycles described in the QF-EHEA and include formal results, statements or judgements on individual higher education institutions. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – IQAA – Compliance (2017) separation of consultancy and preliminary reviews
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords separation of consultancy and preliminary reviews Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The panel noted (p. 30, under ESG 2.2) that IQAA’s efforts to support institutions throughout the assessment process have led to the blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions i.e. consultancy-type support offered to individual institutions as part of its preliminary reviews and its regular external QA activities. In its statement to the review report the agency explained that IQAA’s Accreditation Council has phased out preliminary reviews in December
2016. Based on the understanding that the agency has ceased these activities, the Register Committee concluded that there is no further risk of conflicts of interest. The Register Committee, however, underlined that agency is expected to make a substantive change report should IQAA resume the same or similar consultancy-type activities offered to higher education institutions.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (24/11/2024)
RC decision Compliance “The panel noted that IAAR carries out consultancy activities to assist institutions in the development of their internal quality assurance and to prepare them for accreditation (review report p. 8). While the panel stated that such activities were separated from the external quality assurance activities of IAAR (review report p. 10), no further analysis was provided on how that separation is ensured. The Committee therefore asked the panel to further elaborate on this issue. In its response (letter of 06/05/2017) the panel explained that consultancy activities take the form of seminar-trainings initiated at the request of the institution. According to the agency’s regulation on the External Expert Commission, the staff and external experts involved in the training cannot be part of the accreditation process at the same institution.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MusiQuE – Partial compliance (2016) Stakeholer involvement/students
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholer involvement/students Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (24/11/2024)
RC decision Partial compliance “The Review Panel noted that, while the music education sector and the professional field are involved through the nomination of Board members by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, students, alumni and the broader society were not involved in the governance of MusiQuE.According to its statement “Actions undertaken by MusiQuE as a response to the recommendations formulated by the external Review Team”, MusiQuE considered to add a student member to its Board and planned to discuss a selection process at its May 2016 Board meeting.In its clarification (Annex 8), MusiQuE noted challenges related to representation and continuity, and explained that it would invite a student observer to its Board. MusiQuE further noted that it would reconsider this decision in case a European association of music students would be created.Considering the principle of independence, the Register Committee underlined that a student Board member should not be considered a representative of their organisation, but should serve in an individual capacity. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a European association of music students would obviously be desirable for MusiQuE as a direct interlocutor at the European level, the Register Committee did not concur that the absence of such an association is an insurmountable obstacle to appointing a student Board member. Through its own database of student experts, or in contacts with generic student organisations, or national or regional music students' organisations, it should be feasible to identify a suitable student Board member.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ASIIN – Partial compliance (2017) clear distinction between different types of activities
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords clear distinction between different types of activities Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “When confirming eligibility of the application, the Register Committee requested (see letter of 26/2/2016) that ASIIN demonstrates how it ensures a clear, consistent and transparent separation between activities within the scope of the ESG and others, in particular in its public communication and where similar terms are being used, such as in the case of “type 1” (ESG) and “type 2” (non-ESG) evaluations. The review panel considered that ASIIN needs to further clarify the distinction between “type 1” and “type 2” evaluations. In particular, the panel recommended that ASIIN should no longer use the term “evaluation” for type 2 evaluations, but rather define those as consultation services internally and externally. The Register Committee considered ASIIN's Statement on the review report, noting that third parties tend to use the term “evaluation” for such services. While this might well be the case, the Register Committee could not see how that would prevent ASIIN itself from avoiding the term “evaluation” in its own communication, e.g. on its website. The Register Committee further noted the Statement on the review report does not explain how ASIIN would ensure transparency and a clear distinction despite insisting on using the term “evaluation”. Having considered the additional representation, the Register Committee considered that the distinction between the two types of evaluations is now better presented on the ASIIN website. The Register Committee noted that ASIIN, however, continued to use the word “evaluation” for type-2 evaluations, against the panel's recommendation, arguing that “the term is not restricted to uses as falling under the scope of EQAR”. ASIIN was furthermore “convinced that the distinction between the two types and the fact that type 2 evaluations do not fall under the remit of the ESG, and of EQAR, is very transparent on the ASIIN website”. While the Register Committee recognised that presentation and clarity have been improved, the Committee considered that it remains to be seen whether the presentation is sufficiently clear in practice, in particular in terms of ensuring that all those evaluations that are by their nature within the scope of the ESG are carried out as type-1 evaluations and in compliance with the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ECCE – Partial compliance (2017) Strategic plan, involvement of students in the governance structures
ECCE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Strategic plan, involvement of students in the governance structures Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that, while the goals and objectives of ECCE are clearly described, ‘the strategic planning work seems to be underdeveloped and lagging behind ‘and ‘there is no clear evidence of robust yearly work planning and how it ties to the long or medium term strategies’ (review report, p. 56). The panel further stated that stakeholder involvement has not been fully ensured and especially recommended the involvement of students in the governance structures of ECCE. In its additional representation ECCE submitted a revised Strategic Plan (dated November 2016) with ‘indicators of success’. The agency also added that a student will be included in its Commission of Accreditation with effect from ECCE’s general meeting in November
2017. While the Register Committee took note of the revised strategic plan and the intention to improve student involvement into the governance of ECCE, the Committee considers that these changes still have to be enacted and externally reviewed by a panel (i.e. showing evidence of a robust yearly work planning, adoption of a strategic plan)”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NVAO – Compliance (2023) separation between activities that are within and outside the scope of the ESG
NVAO
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords separation between activities that are within and outside the scope of the ESG Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision Compliance “21. In its Terms of Reference for the review the Register Committee asked the panel to consider how the agency clearly separates between activities that are within and outside the scope of the ESG, in particular considering the ‘Assessment of Quality Agreements in the Netherlands’ and the ‘Assessment of the quality of Training Schools’. While the panel concludes that there is a clear separation between NVAO’s activities within and outside the scope of the ESG, the Committee could not find the argumentation to support the panel’s conclusion and has therefore sought further information.
22. In its response (see minuted conversation), the panel explained that the separation between the agency’s activities that are within and outside the scope of the ESG did not pose any concern.
23. Considering the Assessment of quality agreements in the Netherlands the panel stated that the activity does not address the teaching and learning aspects within higher education and that the focus of the assessment is on how institutions (plan to) spend the so-called study advance grants. The panel added that the agency’s protocol or description does not misrepresent the activity in any way (i.e. referring to ESG or EQAR registration).
24. Considering the evaluation procedure for teacher training schools, the panel clarified that the activity does not address or evaluate the teaching and learning in higher education, but it assesses the collaboration between schools for primary and secondary education and institutions for teacher training.
25. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standard 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ECTE – Compliance (2023) Distinction between HEIs and alternative providers/ Stakeholder involvement in governance
ECTE
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Distinction between HEIs and alternative providers/ Stakeholder involvement in governance Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “28. The Register Committee found ECTE to be only partially compliant with the standard (see decision of 2022-06-28), given the lack of a clear and transparent distinction made between officially-recognised higher education institutions (HEIs) and alternative providers (APs).
29. The panel analysed ECTE’s comprehensive measures introduced and how they have been implemented by both ECTE itself and the accredited providers.
30. The Register Committee commended ECTE for the steps taken and concurred with the panel that these address the earlier mentioned issues.
31. The Register Committee considered that the panel's concerns regarding the Accreditation Commission's (AC) dominance by staff and the lack of other stakeholder representation (e.g. students and business) are an issue related to the requirement of stakeholder participation in ESG 3.1 rather than related to ESG 3.3.
32. The Committee took note of ECTE’s immediate steps to ensure the appointment of stakeholder members (see ECTE statement of 2022-12-21). The Committee further considered the analysis provided by the panel in its addendum to the review report, on the new composition of the Accreditation Commission, that now ensures a broader stakeholder representation.
33. Given that the issues related to the involvement of stakeholders' perspectives on the AC was addressed, Register Committee was now able to concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ECCE – Partial compliance (2023) Involvement of student members in the governing/accreditation body
ECCE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of student members in the governing/accreditation body Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “29. The panel clarified that ECCE had a clear strategy that guided its work; even if the official documents were sometime incoherent in wording, they were coherent in substance.
30. The panel further clarified that ECCE should have been more attentive and flexible as regards the appointment of a new student member to QAAC. The practice led to a student member being absent from QAAC for some time, which could have been avoided if ECCE had been more concerned to prevent this with priority.
31. Having considered the panel's clarification, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion that ECCE partially complies with the standard.
32. The review report explains that ECCE does not provide consultancy themselves but “offers the names and contact details of highly qualified independent educationalists to new chiropractic programmes to assist them with the development of their programmes” (report, p. 14).
33. While the Register Committee considered that these did not appear to be problematic, it found that this should be discussed in more detail in the next review of ECCE.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2023) Involvement of stakeholders
EAEVE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of stakeholders Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (18/07/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “The Committee was displeased to learn that EAEVE has not involved students and other stakeholders in the decision-making bodies since its registration on EQAR in
2017. While the Committee understood that involvingstudents from a narrow scientific field in the work of the agency could be a challenging task, it found that EAEVE could have found alternatives since its registration (e.g. establish stronger ties with stakeholders associations and or/create incentives for motivating other stakeholders to participate in the work of the agency, expand the involvement of students from closely related scientific fields etc.). The Committee found that the agency’s involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance and work is insufficient.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NEAA – Partial compliance (2023) stakeholders, stakeholders involvement, Accreditation Council
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholders, stakeholders involvement, Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “19. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that the composition of NEAA’s Accreditation Council (AC) is dominated by representatives of the academia and that there is a lack of stakeholder involvement with no student or labour market/employment representatives involved in the work and governance of NEAA.
20. The Register Committee noted that while NEAA expanded the direct participation of stakeholders in its work i.e., including representatives of students and employers in the Expert Groups and the Standing Committees, that the composition of the Accreditation Council (AC) is still limited to only representatives of the academic community.
21. Despite the improvements done by NEAA in the involvement of stakeholders’ in some of its processes and bodies, the Register Committee considered the lack of stakeholder involvement (as per the requirement of the standard) in the core governance body of NEAA as of crucial importance.
22. The Committee further emphasised the recommendation of the panel to ensure the inclusion of a representative of students and employers/industry in the AC, including a representative of students (preferably with a legal background) in NEAA’s Ethics Committee.
23. In its representation, the agency provided information on the actions taken toward the government and parliament around the need for legislative changes. The Committee took note and welcomed the positive developments towards the involvement of stakeholders in the Accreditation Council, however at the time of the Register Committee’s consideration, no changes have happened, nor a clear timeline for such changes has been provided.
24. The Register Committee acknowledge that although NEAA has taken all possible actions to improve the involvement of stakeholders within relevant normative documents, the fact remains that the level of compliance is negatively impacted by the regulatory framework within which NEAA operates.
25. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – QAA – Partial compliance (2023) presentation of activities within and outside the scope of the ESG
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords presentation of activities within and outside the scope of the ESG Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (03/10/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “17. The Register Committee noted the following concerns with the way QAA has separated its consultancy and related activities from its external QA activities within the scope of the ESG. In particular the Register Committee remained in doubt whether:
• readers (at least lay readers) are able to distinguish whether the reviews carried out in Albania (with the national QA body) fall within the scope of QAA's registration on EQAR, as they were not officially certified as in line with the ESG and
• how the agency ensures a clear communication and separation of the QE-TNE activity from QAA’s activities within the scope of the ESG, given that the activity can be easily misconstrued as an ESG activity (see change report of 2023-02-13).
18. The Register Committee noted that these concerns have not been addressed in the self-evaluation and external review report and therefore the Committee sought further clarifications from the panel to clarify how are the services rendered by QAA itself (internationally or domestically) separated from QAA’s regular ‘ESG activities’.
19. The panel explained (see minuted call of 2023-10-03) that in its understanding the QE-TNE activity is outside the scope of the ESG and thus outside the scope of the review. While the panel did bring this matter up during its discussion with the agency, the panel was reassured by the agency that this activity is not within the scope of the review. The panel was also unaware of the concerns raised by the Register Committee with regards to the consultancy activity carried out by the agency in Albania.
20. The Register Committee could not establish how the agency ensures a clear separation between ESG-type external quality assurance activities especially in cases where such a risk has been previously noted. The Committee therefore could not follow the panel’s judgment of compliance and found that QAA complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – SAAHE – Partial compliance (2023) student, stakeholder involvement
SAAHE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords student, stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “17. The Register Committee noted the panel’s concerns in terms of a lack of student perspective in the Executive Board of the agency. While the agency has two nominated student representatives in the Executive Board, neither one is a student or a recent graduate of a higher education institution.
18. Furthermore, the Committee noted the unrealistic requirements for one of the two student representatives to hold a third-level university degree and have at least 15 years of academic or professional experience.
19. Considering the lack of diverse stakeholder representation within the governance of the agency i.e., the limiting conditions in allowing the representation of a student or employer perspective the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that SAAHE complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – CYQAA – Partial compliance (2024) strategic plan, stakeholder, stakeholders involvement
CYQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords strategic plan, stakeholder, stakeholders involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “12. The Register Committee noted the concerns raised by the panel that CYQAA’s Strategic Plan (2020-2025) is rather generic, with no specific
activities and clear timeframes. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the panel did not see any evidence of public, annual corporate or activity plan than operationalise the Strategic Plan.
13. The Register Committee understood by the panels analysis, that the agency involves representatives from both public and private universities, students and regulated professions. However, as underlined by the panel, the involvement of private higher education institutions and many public and private colleges and their students is very limited and CYQAA should further widen their engagement in its governance and evaluation processes.
14. Considering the lack of comprehensive and rather generic Strategic Plan and the shortcomings in the involvement of stakeholders from all
higher education institutions, public and private colleges, the Register Committee concurred with the panel and found that CYQAA only partially
complies with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry