Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (14/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Further efforts made by the

agency to engage students in the review panels - in particular

students have participated in the first reviews by the time the Register Committee analysed the application. While the panel’s

conclusion of non-compliance did reflect accurately the situation at the

February 2022’s site visit, the Committee concluded that the agency is now

partially compliant with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined

that further evidence of the actual involvement of the students in the panels

will be needed and has to be thoroughly analysed in the next review of HAHE”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee understood that the panels involve students and other stakeholders on equal bases. Furthermore, the Committee learned that despite the regular (online) trainings offered by the agency, very few people have enrolled for this online trainings.

14. The Register Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should find ways into making training opportunities more attractive for the reviewers to attend.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“17. In its past decision, the Register Committee noted PKA’s intention to ensure students are part of the peer-review expert groups in the opinion-giving process and to contribute as equal partners.

18. In its 2023 review report, the panel noted improvements related to the wider engagement of different stakeholders’ groups. In the case of opinion-giving procedure, panels are now composed of members of relevant sections or experts appointed from the academic teachers expert group and a student.

19. The Register Committee thus concluded that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous report and therefore can follow the panel’s judgment of compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the agency has a wide range of experts involved in institutional, departmental and programme evaluations and that higher education institutions can make reasoned objections concerning the composition of the Expert Evaluation Committees (EEC - panel of experts conducting external evaluation).According to the analysis of the review panel, there is room for a more substantial role of students in evaluations, which is currently limited to a few issues (review report p. 41).While the panel found the arrangement for the appointment of EEC transparent, the panel also underlined that CYQAA should publish the procedures and criteria for the selection of all categories of experts and to explicitly define and communicate the criteria for the selection of student experts.In its additional representation the agency stated that it has published on its website the procedures and criteria for the selection of all categories of experts, including students. The agency further explained that the involvement of student experts is not restricted by the law or limited by CYQAA, and that the agency endeavours to support students’ participation in evaluation processes. The agency further included details about a recent training workshop organised for student experts in preparation for an external review. CYQAA added that the review panel extract referring to the participation of students on limited matters referred to a few students and that the review panel concluded that ‘all groups of experts feel that they participate on an equal footing’ (review report p. 41).14.The agency further argued that students are equal to the rest of the panel members, that they follow the same terms of reference, have the same responsibilities (defined in the “Guidelines for the Membersof External Evaluation Committees”), receive the same information, directions and clarifications and have the same rights and obligationsas the other panel members.15.Having considering the clarification provided by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion of (substantial) compliance with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	absence of student reviewers in panels for NCE procedures and overseas accreditations
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (21/10/2019)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The involvement of students was flagged when A3ES was admitted to the Register. While the panel’s conclusion was that A3ES was substantially compliant withthe standard, the Register Committee noted that students were not involved in prior accreditation of study programmes (NCE) and international assessment teams. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel in that regard. Inits response the panel explained that NCE was a compliance-check procedure based on juridic judgement and it involved only experts knowledgable in law. Furthermore, the panel considered A3ES arguments not to involve students in international assessment teams as reasonable andas exceptional cases that do not indicate that A3ES deviates significantly from the quality standards expected under 2.4.The clarification from the panel thus confirmed that students are not part of the panels for prior accreditation of study programmes (NCE) nor part of the panels for overseas compliance check. The Registered Committee considered that this arrangement did not meet the requirements of the standard and that students should be involved as expert panel members in all activities that involve an assessment by a panel of experts. Also for new study programme concepts and for existing programmes implemented in a new setting abroad, students may add a valuable additional and specific perspective to the process. Given the absence of student reviewers in panels for NCE procedures and overseas accreditations, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not fully addressed and was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion. The Register Committee concluded that A3ES only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training of experts, clarity of rules for expert pool
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“21. […] the review panel noted that the criteria for the recruitment of the experts were not formalised and published.

22. The review panel discussed that the training of experts consisted only of a phone briefing. The panel recommended that AHPGS intensify and further improve the training for both new and experienced experts.

23. The Register Committee took note of AHPGS' explanation that most of its new experts had prior experience from serving as accreditation experts for other agencies in Germany; given the common system there would be no need to re-train them. While the Committee could follow this argument for experts with prior experience, it considered that there will certainly be some – even if few – experts who participate in their first accreditation with AHPGS, and the Committee considered that a more in-depth training was warranted for those.

24. The additional representation underlined that AHPGS offers a regular training programme [...] it remained unclear whether it was ensured that all panel members have participated in a formal training session […]

25. The representation further clarified that there actually is an open invitation, […]

27. Given the panel’s analysis and the issues that remain unclear after clarification and additional representation, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion but considered that AHPGS only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. In its previous decision of registration on EQAR (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found AHPGS to be partially compliant with the standard due to ambiguity in whether the agency ensured that all experts received training. Additionally, the criteria and process for recruiting reviewers were not clear.

14. From the report, the Register Committee learned that the training process has been improved, and ensures inclusivity and accessibility for all experts. Furthermore, as underlined by the panel, the format was made more adaptable and personalised.

15. Following the improvements made by the agency, the Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency now complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that in the opinion-giving process students are not involved as members of review panels. Opinions are prepared by members of relevant Sections or PKA experts, following which the Presidium prepares a resolution that is forwarded to the Minister and highereducation institutions. The panel noted that students are to a certain extent involved as members of the Presidium of PKA. In its statement to the review report PKA acknowledged its shortcomingregarding the student involvement in the opinion giving processes and decided to set up a team of student experts to issue opinions on applications.The Register Committee welcomed PKA’s intention but found that the composition of the relevant sections and experts panels is still unchanged. The Committee further underlined that students are normally expected to beinvolved as part of the peer-review expert groups and to contribute as equal partners. As the current arrangement of PKA could not yet be reviewed by an external panel the Committee was unable to conclude whether the way students are involved meets the requirements of the standard. Register Committee therefore concurred with the review panel’s view and concluded that PKA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	lack of student experts in some review panels
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (20/02/2020)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its additional representation ANVUR acknowledged the lack of student experts in review panels, and referred to the involvement of students in the internal consultation process on new study programmes. ANVUR added that starting from November 2019, the agency has included (PhD) students in the evaluation groups for PhD programmes at two institutions. The agency also presented its plans to involve students in the AFAM’s external reviews, starting with a pilot project during

2020. ANVUR further stated that starting in 2021 the fees will be aligned between the faculty panel members and student panel members. The Register Committee considered that if student experts have an equal role in panels there is no ground for paying them differently, and welcomed ANVUR's commitment to change its practice in that regard. The Register Committee underlined that the consultation of student representatives in the institutions' internal preparation processes for new study programmes cannot replace the requirement of the standard, i.e. that students are part of ANVUR's expert groups.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	no student on a panel at a request of an individual HEI
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. [...] students had not been involved in the panels for enhancement reviews previously.

18. [...] The panel’s clarification confirmed that student involvement on panel’s was not yet a fully established practice across all reviews, but that students will be part of all future procedures.

20. [...] The Committee, however, noted that the December 2018 review of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK) in Ghent did not include a student panel member; with a note in the report that “contrary to EQ-Arts’ policy and practice, it was the decision and request of School of Art KASK that a student panel member was not included in this review process”.

21. The Register Committee concluded that EQ-Arts was apparently ready to make such exceptions, which are in contradiction to ESG standards. The Committee underlined that such exceptions are incompatible with the spirit of a predefined quality assurance process that is implemented consistently.

22. As EQ-Arts does not stringently implement its policy as regards student panel members, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in ex-ante procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that students are not involved in ex-ante accreditation of new institutions, the accreditation of doctoral schools and in the initial evaluation of programmes. The Register Committee agrees with the panel’s reasoning that the anonymity of experts in ex-ante evaluations precludes evaluators for becoming answerable for their decisions.[...] The agency also stated that the practice of maintaining the anonymity of experts will be changed following the Board’s decision (of February 2019). Regarding the involvement of students in the ex ante evaluations, the agency argued that students are involved in the decision-making process, as members of the expert committees where findings are discussed and that all eight expert committees now involve a student. In the view of the agency ex-ante evaluations call for an academic judgement as the focus is on academic content. The Register Committee welcomed HAC’s decision to lift the anonymity of experts (in case of ex-ante procedures) and acknowledged HAC’s intention to address the involvement of students in its follow-up report to the coordinator. The Committee nevertheless noted that such changes are yet to take place, and underlined that students should be appropriately involved in all peer expert groups, including the ex-ante evaluation stage as per the requirement of the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/03/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	infrequent involvement of students in some procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (05/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The involvement of student reviewers in reviews for Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Committee noted that student reviewers now take part in these reviews […]. The panel's report, however, suggested that the standard was not fully met, as there were no student review panel members in some of QAA's review methods. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel in that regard. The Committee noted that students are not on the review teams for General Osteopathic Council reviews (GosC); and it could not be established how frequently students are on the panels for Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) or Transnational Education review (TNE).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in some reviews and involvement limited to student matters; anonymous review team experts, site-visit undertaken by an agency sub-commission instead of the group of exprts which prepared the report
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that students (and employer representatives) take part in periodic programme accreditations only when they are combined with institutional ones. The panel also noted that the involvement of students is limited to student matters.The Committee further noted that at the time of the application by CAQA review team experts remained anonymous and that their involvement was limited to assessing compliance based on documentation. The site visits were undertaken by a CAQA sub-commission, which subsequently prepared the final report integrating the experts' feedback.The Register Committee considered that this arrangement did not meet the requirement of the standard and that assessments should be undertaken by a “group of external experts”. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement & training of experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“While the panel confirmed the practice of involving students as review experts in all ARACIS’s reviews, including at programme level, the panel added that at the time of its review the agency had had little practical experience. The panel further commented that “some evaluation panels treated student members as supernumeraries and not as full partner-evaluators in the review exercise and that some evaluators were not attuned to the necessity for ‘student centeredness’ in higher education and what that required of tutors and of them as evaluators.” (Review Report, p. 35)

In its additional representation ARACIS [...] commented that its policies and procedures gave students equal rights and obligations i.e. the coverage of mission costs and remuneration is the same as for the other members, and that students are required to participate in the Council, the Permanent Speciality Commission and expert panels. (p. 8-9) ARACIS further added that one of the aspects considered in the selection process of the Permanent Speciality Commission in 2018 was the understanding of students’ role and involvement in quality assurance activities.

The Register Committee noted that, while ARACIS regularly offers training sessions for its evaluators, the panel found that the format for training sessions offered few opportunities for learning through simulation and practical exercise and that the ‘virtual’ and ‘online’ training were lacking in efficacy. In the additional representation, ARACIS clarified that the e-platform is a complementary facility to the face to face training sessions and not a substitute. [..] The agency provided a list of past training sessions focused on the practical activity of the Permanent Speciality Commissions.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in external review process
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the involvement of students in all external review expert groups.The panel’s findings showed that students participate in all SKVC’s expert teams for all types of evaluations, whether in Lithuania or abroad. In its interviews the panel also learned that students were not always involved equally in the external review process, an issue that was mostly depended on the chair of the team (Review report pg. 36).The Register Committee noted that SKVC involved students in all its reviews and has therefore addressed the flag. he Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that SKVC could play a more supportive role in ensuring that students participate as equal members in all panels.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of involvement of students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of initial inclusion (18/05/2011) the Register Committee flagged the participation of international experts and students. The panel noted that usually two experts are involved in the evaluation of bachelor and master programmes, and that these panels do not include students. According to the review panel, HCERES found it very hard to recruit students due to their need for extra time to carry out evaluations alongside their studies. The Register Committee further noted that in the ‘evaluation of doctoral schools’ the agency included a recent doctoral graduate rather than an actual student or doctoral candidate (p. 13 external evaluation report). The panel further noted that the involvement of students in institutional evaluations is limited to panel discussions. In its statement to the review report (of 10/03/2017) the agency, however, commented that students have the same role and responsibilities as other members of the panel in institutional evaluations. The Register Committee concluded that the agency has not addressed the flag and does not meet the requirements of standard 2.4 to involve students in all its external quality assurance activities.While considering that the failure to meet the requirement of the standard concerns a large proportion of HCERES' activity, the Register Committee noted that due to the immanent transition from programme accreditation to the evaluation of study fields, the involvement of students is to be resolved in this new setting.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel considered that ACQUIN generally follows common practice in terms of preparation of experts, but remarked critically that ”ACQUIN only ensures a minimum for the preparation for the system accreditation”. The panel specifically noted that the preparation of experts in system accreditation was less intensive compared to other agencies working under the auspices of the German Accreditation Council (GAC). Consequently, the panel recommended that ACQUIN offer at least voluntary trainings or workshops to those experts. The development of ACQUIN's activities for training and preparation of experts was flagged for attention when ACQUIN's registration was last renewed. Considering the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that practice did not change materially and the issue was therefore not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	(non-local) student involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee took note of the explanation in ASIIN's additional representation of its policy and efforts to recruit “local” students, i.e. coming from the same country as the institutions under review. The Committee noted that the participation of students nationally and internationally was increased “to practically 100%”. The Register Committee noted that there was only one case reported where no student could be recruited for the panel. The Register Committee, however, underlined that it would not be compatible with the ESG to use the policy in the sense that only a local student can be appointed. That is, if no local student can be recruited for whatever reason, ASIIN is obliged to involve a non-local student, rather than no student at all.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Independence of the review panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel stated that the agency’s conflict of interest procedure has not been addressed since the agency’s initial review. The analysis of the panel showed that ECCE’s procedure lack clear criteria with regards to areas of possible conflict of interest and that this has led to unsatisfactory choices of experts in a number of reviews carried out by ECCE. The panel further expressed concern regarding the presence of an evaluation secretary from ECCE’s staff within each expert panel. In its additional representation ECCE stated that it has nominated two non-chiropractic experts to evaluation panels and that it has de-centralised the secretary function, so that there is a separate secretary for each review. The Register Committee noted that ECCE has made steps to address the independence of its review panels. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry