Precedents database
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AIC – Partial compliance (2023) coverege of ESG Part 1
AIC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords coverege of ESG Part 1 Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. The Register Committee follows the panel’s analysis regarding the requirement of a public quality assurance policy (ESG 1.1), explicitly in the Inclusion of a licensed study programme on the accreditation form of a study field and the Accreditation of foreign study programmes frameworks. The Register Committee noted that AIC has yet to fully take up the national qualification framework (ESG 1.2) in each assessment framework, focussing more on assessment policies in all assessment frameworks, including a focus on student-centred assessment (ESG 1.3), and adding reference to public information (ESG 1.8) in the Inclusion of a licensed study programme on the accreditation form of a study field framework.
11. After consideration of the additional representation by AIC regarding the points addressed in the panel review report and the Register Committee decisions, the Register Committee concluded that even when considering that different procedures could be considered as a package, there are missing elements with regards to standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 in the QA model of the agency.
12. Therefore the Register Committee agrees with the argumentation of the panel and judgement of the standard only as partial compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) ESG part 1, implementation in practice
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords ESG part 1, implementation in practice Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. The Register Committee understood from the analysis by the panel that only one external quality assurance activity, EQA Audit, covered all standards of the ESG Part 1 in full. Both provider accreditation and programme accreditation procedures did not cover ESG Part 1 in full.
11. The Committee learned that during the site-visit the panel was presented with the draft versions of the new Provider accreditation Manual and the new Programme Accreditation Manual and noted that further alignment with ESG Part 1 is expected to be ensured through these documents. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that the Provider Accreditation Manual has been published and in use as of January 2024 and the Programme Accreditation Manual will be in use as of January
2025.
12. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm without a panel insight whether the new standards and procedures have been implemented in practice.
13. In its additional representation, MFHEA confirmed that its Provider Accreditation Manual came into force in January 2024 and that now all provider accreditation procedures follow the new methodology. MFHEA further informed that the Programme Accreditation Manual will be officially presented by the agency in November 2024 (see clarification of 2024-09-24) and the same will be in place for all programme accreditation procedures as of January 2025.
14. The Register Committee welcomed, once again, the actions taken by the agency in order to ensure that all MFHEA activities cover ESG Part 1 in full. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without panel insight. Therefore, the Committee upheld its initial judgement that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
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
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ANVUR – Partial compliance (2025) Part 1 insufficiently covered, inconsistency in addressing Part 1 standards in different procedures.
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 insufficiently covered, inconsistency in addressing Part 1 standards in different procedures. Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. ANVUR conducts wide variety of external quality assurance procedures in its national higher education system. The Committee understood that some of the activities are applied in conjunction to each other (e.g. initial programme accreditation combines in certain elements with periodic institutional assessment of universities).
11. From the review panel report, the Register Committee learned that ANVUR aims to cover all the ESG Part 1 standards holistically through different combinations of their EQA activities taken together (e.g. ESG 1.9 is not assessed each time an initial programme accreditation is conducted but is instead included in the periodic institutional assessment of the university).
12. The Register Committee took note of the different combinations of ANVUR’s external quality assurance activities. It, however, learned that even in this case, few of the standards (e.g. ESG 1.6, ESG 1.7, ESG 1.8 and ESG 1.9) are not fully covered yet. The Committee learned from the analysis that the procedures which do not address all standards of the ESG Part 1 on their own (i.e. complementary activities such as the initial accreditation and periodic assessment) do not do so even in combination with at least one other self-standing activity (see remark on the ESG 2.1 in the EQAR Use and Interpretations of the ESG ).
13. The Register Committee further learned that there is a level of inconsistency in integrating ESG Part 1 in different external QA activities of ANVUR, for example ESG 1.9 being considered only in the initial accreditation of PhD programmes, but not in other procedures.
14. The Register Committee found that the agency is yet to effectively translate standards 1.1 – 1.10 of the ESG into all of its activities and demonstrate that the complementary activities jointly address ESG Part 1 fully. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that ANVUR complies only partially with ESG 2.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – VLUHR QA – Partial compliance (2024) ESG Part 1
VLUHR QA
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords ESG Part 1 Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard, as the ESG Part 1 was not sufficiently addressed in the main activities of VLUHR QA.
9. The Register Committee understood from the panel report that, since the last review, VLUHR QA has started employing a new framework for assessing programs in Flanders, which consists of eight quality features (QF). The new framework is stipulated by Flemish decree and must be implemented by the QA agencies evaluating programmes in Flanders.
10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the new quality framework still does not directly address certain elements of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4. There is no explicit mention that institutions must have a public quality policy (ESG 1.1) or processes for programme approval (ESG 1.2); nor it is addressed explicitly that “the internal processes of the university to ensure the monitoring of support processes for students at all stages of the lifecycle” (ESG 1.4).
11. The Register Committee also learned that VLUHR QA has addressed the missing elements only in the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report for higher education institutions. These elements are not covered in the Manual Programme Review, the main document followed by the external reviewers.
12. While the Register Committee understood that the new Flemish Framework addresses ESG to a higher extent than the previous one, the absence of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4 in the Framework and in the Manual raises concerns about the possibility of them being overlooked during the assessment. Therefore, the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially complies to the standard and highlighted the panel’s recommendation on including the content of the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report in the Manual Programme Review.”
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 (26/04/2025)
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 – ANVUR – Compliance (2025) Fitness for purpose difficult to fully assess due to dispersed methodologies
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Fitness for purpose difficult to fully assess due to dispersed methodologies Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “15. At the time of the review the methodologies were dispersed across different documents including ministerial decrees, other regulatory documents, and procedural guidelines, making it challenging to find information on each of the activities in a comprehensive manner. While the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard it highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should more explicitly define and consistently publish the purpose and aims of each of its external quality assurance activities.”
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
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) clarity and consistency of standards, decision-making procedure
NEAQA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords clarity and consistency of standards, decision-making procedure Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee shared the view that NEAQA’s standards would benefit from a revision to ensure full clarity, consistency and readability, in particular in what concerns the employment of site-visits in programme accreditation procedures. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's analysis as regards the arrangement whereby NEAQA’s members combine their decision-making function with that of external experts and with the recommendation to separate these functions. In its additional representation the agency stated that the inherited regulations, procedures and standards of CAQA were revised considering the panel’s concerns and the new by-laws. According to NEAQA particular attention was devoted to ensuring the broader inclusion of external reviewers and the separation of review experts from other member and staff positions in the organisation.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – ASHE – Compliance (2017) overlaping and duplication of processess
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords overlaping and duplication of processess Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision to admit ASHE to the Register, the Register Committee had flagged the need to review ASHE's different processes with a view to avoiding duplication. The Register Committee noted that the review panel remained concerned about different ASHE processes addressing the same or very similar issues. Moreover, the panel appeared to be concerned that the new processes for re-accreditation of doctoral programmes and the possible future processes related to the Croatian Qualifications Framework (CROQF) might even lead to further duplication.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was not addressed and remains a matter deserving the urgent attention of both ASHE and the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education, being responsible for the legal framework of the external quality assurance processes implemented by ASHE.
The Register Committee concluded that all processes deployed by ASHE in themselves are fit for purpose and were developed in line with the standard, while the overlap and duplication identified by the panel is primarily the result of the typology of external quality assurance processes prescribed by law, the Register Committee was nevertheless able to concur with the panel's conclusion that ASHE complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the fitness for purpose of the agency’s metholodogy, the panel identified a number of shortcomings i.e. lack of a regular review of the agency’s methodology, blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions (such as the preliminary review processes and the post-accreditation monitoring process).
In the analysis the panel further underlined the need to shift the responsibility for quality from the agency towards the institution and that the current procedures might be impeding such development. While the Register Committee considered the agency’s statement to the review report, noting the phasing out of preliminary reviews and the clarification regarding post-accreditation reviews, the Committee concluded that the achieved fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology needs to be externally reviewed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AI – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “While the panel finds that in general AI’s methodologies are designed to ensure quality and relevance for all higher education institutions, it underlined that the agency does not give recommendations following a positive programme accreditation or a negative decision for institutional accreditation.The panel further noted that “methods are defined and designed to ensure that the aims and objectives for external quality assurance are achieved methodologies are fit for purpose” and that “AI put more emphasis on the developmental dimension of external quality assurance.” Considering the analysis of the panel the Register Committee formed the view that the developmental dimension of external quality assurance has been sufficiently well integrated in AI’s external quality assurance procedures. The panel stated that AI doesn’t have a proactive role in the involvement of stakeholders in the design of new procedures. As stakeholder involvement is nevertheless ensured in the consultations on new procedures initiated by the Ministry and Accreditation Council, the Register Committee concluded that this requirement of the standard is met.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement/students
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement/students Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions, teaching staff and professional musicians participated in the development of MusiQuE’s methodologies and processes through their representative organisations Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen (AEC), European Music Schools Union (EMU) and Pearle*-Live Performance Europe.The Review Panel found that students and representatives of the broader society were not involved in the initial development of MusiQuE's procedures. The Register Committee learned from the clarififcation provided by MusiQuE (Annex 8) that a Student Working Group has been established as part of the EU-funded “FULL SCORE” project, which is now involved in the further development of MusiQuE's methodologies through MusiQuE’s annual calls for feedback.the Register Committee noted that it will require attention whether MusiQuE’s ways of consulting students are sustainable and permanent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry