Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of consistent involvement of students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of renewal (of 25/11/2011) the Register Committee flagged the lack of involvement of international experts and representation of the perspectives of students and professional practice in assessments of large clusters including study programmes from different disciplines.In the review report, the panel noted that ZEvA appoints external expert groups in all procedures, and as a general rule at least one student member is included in these groups. The Register Committee however noted that while the agency has involved students in most of its reviews it has not done so for any of its certification procedures and at least one programme accreditation (i.e. PhD in World Maritime University).While the panel formed the view that overall ZEvA’s procedures are well structured in its key areas of activity the newly added procedures, i.e. certification procedures lacked clear statements regarding the processes and responsibilities for the selection, nomination and appointment of experts. In ZEvA’s response to the panel’s report (of 31/5/2016) the agency stated that the responsibility for the appointment of experts lies with the consulting commission and that this has been clarified within the updated Guidelines for Certification and Quality Guidelines. The Register Committee noted the agency’s clarification and action taken to address the panel’s concern.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students, panel members
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (17/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The panel noted that the internal system of the agency generally aimed to have students in every expert panel, in each of ANECA’s procedure. The panel, however, found out that the majority of AUDIT INTERNATIONAL experts panels did not include students (see clarification of 2023-02-17).

11. According to the panel, ANECA found it challenging to ensure student participation in these experts panel due to the limited availability of the students. The Committee acknowledged that recruiting student experts might be more difficult for some reviews than for others, but underlined that this challenge has to be addressed by any agency and cannot serve as a reason to carry out reviews without student panel members.

12. Given the absence of students from most expert panels for AUDIT INTERNATIONAL, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but concluded that ANECA only partially complies with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training, training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“8. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that the trainings of experts have been reduced to only a briefing session taking place before the site visit. The panel’s analysis further show that the last training organised by NEAA took place in 2018 (before the Covid-19 pandemic).

9. The Register Committee underlined that the agency is expected to ensure that experts have the appropriate skills and competences to carry out external reviews and that such skills and competences are acquired through regular (periodic) trainings organised by the agency.

10. In its representation, NEAA provided information that it has started intensively working on preparation and implementation of several trainings focused on specific standards and criteria. NEAA also informed that future training sessions will be included in its Action Plan.

11. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by NEAA to address the earlier concerns, but noted that the Committee could not verify whether these training activities will ensure that all members of a panel will be systematically trained prior to undertaking an external quality assurance procedure. The Committee noted that these will remain to be determined in NEAA’s next external review.

12. The Register Committee therefore remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in review panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee already noted in its change report decision (of 2022-10-28) that QAA has changed its policy since the last review and addressed the concerns raised as regards to student involvement in review panels.

12. The Committee was reassured by the panel’s analysis that showed that QAA ensures there is always a student included in its panels for all of the activities under review, except for follow-up visits. The Register Committee understands that follow-up visits are part of an external QA activity, and not a separate activity on its own and therefore finds this approach acceptable.

13. The Register Committee therefore finds the earlier issues addressed and concur with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should extend its pool of international reviewers in light of its own increasing rate of international reviews.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student in panel
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. The Register Committee stressed in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 2021-10-22 that the group of experts in the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure, does not include a student. While the Committee understands that this procedure was created as a temporary and short-term solution in order to close possible gaps in the accreditation periods of programmes (until the next re-accreditation of the corresponding study field), the Committee could not follow the agency’s decision of not involving students, as per the requirement of the standard 2.4.

18. The Register Committee further noted from the review panel’s report that the agency has not resolved this issue and sustained its position that two experts should be sufficient in this procedure.

19. Considering AIC’s statement to the report that, the Register Committee understood that AIC is applying the national framework. The Committee however underlined that it is AIC’s responsibility to ensure ESG compliance with all standards and that it has taken measures to ensure the involvement of students in all procedures.

20. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation to include student-members in all procedures involving external experts, in particular in the procedures for Inclusion of a licensed study programme in the accreditation form of study field.

21. In its additional representation, AIC explained that the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure is not a stand-alone procedure, but a temporary measure while the new quality assurance system from 2025 will include students in all procedures. The Register Committee however noted that students are at the time not included in this procedure, as the new system is not implemented yet. The Register Committee underlined the expectation of the standard, that

students should be involved in all QA processes.

22. The Register Committee concurs with the panel that AIC complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

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	Absence of student reviewers; Training of student reviewers
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2024-11-05), A3ES was found to be partially compliant with the standard due to the absence of student reviewers in panels in the New Study Programmes (NCE) procedures and overseas accreditations. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that the status quo has not changed.

11. Furthermore, the Committee understood that except for initial trainings, the agency does not organise systematic training for new or revised processes and that some reviewers, including students, have not received training in the past five years. Furthermore, the Committee understood that student reviewers receive only training for programme reviews, but not for institutional reviews.

12. Given the lack of students involvement in some procedures and the lack of systemic training for reviewers, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion, and found that A3ES remains to be partially compliant with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Peer-review experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that, in the ex-post accreditation reviews are collaborative effort between the panel and the Commission of Study Programmes Evaluation (CET). In particular, the Criterion 3 of the methodology is pre-evaluated by a member of the CET. Even though it is not currently the practice, these members can also participate in the external site visit.

12. The Register Committee shared the panel’s concerns that the current set up in which the CET members are participating both in the external evaluation and the decision making on the final outcomes of the review may lead to a potential conflict of interest. Further, the Register Committee noted that this arrangement is contrary to the requirement that external quality assurance is conducted by a group of external experts.

13. The Register Committee also learned that follow-up activities are not conducted by panels, but directly by CET sub-commissions. CET sub-commission includes a chairperson, two academic members, one student member and one quality spokesperson.

14. Given the above mentioned issues, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last review the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's policies were not always followed in practice, i.e. use of on-site visits in evaluations and use of evaluation results in programme accreditations. In its current review, the panel stated that it did not find any evidence of deviations from the prescribed procedures and that policies are implemented consistently. The panel, however, remarked that ASIIN could provide better guidance about the site visit schedule and ensure more transparency in the processing of requests deemed potentially problematic from countries of higher education institutions outside of the European Higher Education Area (see also under ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“absence of any standard framework or guidance as to the use of site visits or interviews in thematic evaluations, makes it unclear whether the agency has sufficient approaches to validate the evidences provided by HEIsin this activity. In addition, the panel's report touched only briefly on the suitability of online interviews instead of regular site visits in the activities program evaluation and appraisal of applications for degree-awarding powers.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ In its previous decision of inclusion (05/06/2015) the Register Committee flagged for attention whether follow-up procedures were introduced for degree assessments between the first ex-post accreditation and consecutive periodic re-accreditations. ACSUCYL has since its last review introduced a new system of annual follow-up procedures. The panel also confirmed that it was convinced that the follow-up procedures are well and consistently implemented. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Formal follow-up processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel considered there was a lack of a formal follow-up by SQAA to "touch base with HEIs” before the next cyclical re-evaluation/re-accreditation in case of unconditionally positive decisions. The Register Committee further took note of SQAA's response to the review report, setting out its approach to monitoring higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems during the re-accreditation cycles.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel’s analysis showed that the agency has made improvements, having also introduced follow-up procedure for its audits. The Register Committee found that while the panel was satisfied with this improvement, the approach to follow-up should allow higher education institutions to also report progress in the implementation of recommendations before all external review procedures. The Register Committee further noted that site-visits are not consistently carried out by NEAQA for programme accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In ANECA’s last review, the Register Committee flagged for attention the implementation of the key elements of the standard i.e. self-evaluation, site visit in the development and implementation of the ACCREDITA programme. The panel’s evidence and analysis show that since its last review ANECA has revised the ACREDITA procedure, which now includes: a self-evaluation stage, a revision by an assessment committee during a site-visit, and a report providing guidance for the actions taken by the institution.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistency and transparency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ Having evaluated the procedures for decision making by Quality Assessment Council for Higher Education (HEQAC), the panel concluded that the standard for consistency and transparency in decision-making has received considerable attention and improvement since the last review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
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 introduction of site visits as well as follow-up procedures undertaken by HCERES. The panel noted that since its last review HCERES did not ensure a consistent follow-up in its EQA activities due to a prolonged process of succeeding evaluations (that included the introduction of site evaluations). The agency replaced the follow-up with a progress report that higher education institutions would prepare as part of their self-evaluation so as to facilitate and speed up the process. Moreover, the panel noted that evaluations of programmes are carried out without site visits.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The panel noted that HCERES programme evaluation panels do not meet with students during review visits. The panel discussed the new follow-up process introduced for institutional evaluation only, but noted that some questions remained regarding the added value given that there is no analysis or feedback in direct response to follow-up reports.

19. The panel considered that HCERES made improvements since the last review, as site visits were not carried out for programme evaluations at all previously and given there was no follow-up process previously.

20. While the Register Committee acknowledged that significant progress has been made, it did not consider that HCERES complies with the standard yet in light of the limited added value of the follow-up process and the fact that students are not interviewed during site visits. The Committee therefore did not concur with the panel, but concluded that HCERES remains partially compliant with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (09/10/2020)
RC decision	Compliance

“Compliance Compliance While the Register Committee noted – from the agency’s statement to the review report – that THEQC had introduced the new maturity levels for internal QA systems, the Committee was unclear whether any changes were made to the agency’s follow-up processes and has therefore sought further clarification from the agency.The agency explained in its clarification letter that an Institutional Follow-up Program (IFuP) was initiated at the beginning of 2020 and it is carried out for all institutions that have passed through an initial institutional external evaluation. The follow-up team performs a preliminary check of the institutional self-evaluation reports, performance indicators and other additional documents followed by a one-day online site-visit, which results in an Institutional Follow-up Report (IFuR) published by THEQC.

The Committee further noted that THEQC has only just initiated the Institutional Accreditation Programme (IAP); the follow-up process for this procedure has not yet been defined. new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that AKKORK’s follow-up procedures were not consistently implemented for all off the agency’s external quality assurance activities and therefore flagged this matter for future attention. In its 2019 review report, the panel showed that AKKORK had taken steps to address its flag by including follow-up processes as part of its contracts with higher education institutions. The panel found that - while follow-ups are not part of all contracts signed with the reviewed institutions, that they are nevertheless carried out after a conditional accreditation. The panel further underlined a number of shortcomings related to AKKORK’s independent accreditation reviews at institutional level and AKKORK’s IQAS procedures. Since these procedures are no longer on offer by AKKORK, the Register Committee found that the panel’s concerns were therefore addressed”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow up procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that AEQES has acted on the recommendations made in the 2011 review and adopted reinforced follow-up procedures in 2015.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow-up policy
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Review Panel noted that the follow-up procedure is only compulsory for MusiQuE’s accreditation reviews at present.While the Register Committee acknowledged that it is more difficult to impose a follow-up procedure in a voluntary review than an obligatory one, the Committee underlined that MusiQuE is free to design the contractual conditions and requirements for institutions.The Register Committee thus noted the Review Panel’s recommendation that MusiQuE should implement a consistent follow-up policy for all different types of review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry