Precedents database
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) students
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords students Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “26. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that at the time of the review, some provider and programme accreditation procedures did not involve experts and that these procedures were conducted by MFHEA’s staff. The Committee understood that the only reviews that involved panels were the accreditation procedures for provider seeking university status and EQA Audit (see also ESG 2.3).
27. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that the revised manuals, referenced earlier in this decision, require that now every procedure is conducted by an external review panel of a minimum of three experts out of whom one is a student.
28. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm whether these changes have been implemented in practice.
29. In its additional representation, MFHEA referred to the new manuals for provider and programme accreditation where the involvement of students in every external review panel will be guaranteed. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that despite that, the new Programme Accreditation Manual would be in place as of January 2025, the agency already includes students in the review panels for programme accreditation procedures.
30. From the additional representation, the Committee has learned that at the given time only a very small portion of programme accreditation reports are available on MFHEA’s website and further publication of reports is planned in January 2025 (see ESG 2.6). From the limited number of reports available online, the Committee could see that the agency started including a student reviewer in the expert panel.
31. The Register Committee welcomed the changes made by the agency in order to involve students in all external review procedures and encouraged MFHEA to continue this practice. The Committee, however, found that it remains to be evaluated by an external panel whether the planned changes have been consistently implemented and students are included in all programme review panels once the new programme accreditation manual is adopted. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – A3ES – Partial compliance (2024) Absence of student reviewers; Training of student reviewers
A3ES
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
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Peer-review experts
AQUIB
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ASIIN – Compliance (2021) Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
ASIIN
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – UKÄ – Partial compliance (2021) Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
UKÄ
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
ACSUCYL
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – SQAA – Compliance (2019) Formal follow-up processes
SQAA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
NEAQA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ANECA – Compliance (2018) EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
ANECA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HAKA – Compliance (2018) Consistency and transparency in decision making
HAKA
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2017) Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
HCERES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AEQES – Compliance (2017) consistent follow up procedures
AEQES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) consistent follow-up policy
MusiQuE
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2022) follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
HCERES
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – THEQC – Compliance (2021) new accreditation programm, follow-up process not yet defined.
THEQC
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – EVALAG – Partial compliance (2024) Follow-up
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Follow-up Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “11. The Register Committee, noted in the analysis by the panel that evalag’s review procedures include a self-assessment report and an external assessment followed by expert’s report, but no follow-up activities, unless related to conditions/requirements established by evalag when taking the corresponding decision.
12. Given the concerns on the lack of consistent follow-up in all of evalag's procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – IEP – Compliance (2024) Implementing processes
IEP
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Implementing processes Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “9. In the last review, the agency was found to be partially compliant with the standard as the follow-up model did not ensure a consistent follow-up for all evaluated higher education institutions.
10. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis IEP’s efforts in addressing the shortcomings with the standards. Furthermore, the Committee noted that IEP took further measures to increase the rate of submission of follow-up reports by evaluated higher education institutions. .
11. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AQUIB – Compliance (2024) Informing stakeholders
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Informing stakeholders Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “9. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis, that while external quality assurance processes are in line with the standard, there are discrepancies in understanding the processes of drafting and finalising review reports, as well as the role of the QA expert in the Commission of Study Programmes Evaluation (CET).
10. The Register Committee could follow the panel's view that the agency is compliant with standard, but emphasized the panel's recommendation that the agency should ensure that all stakeholders are effectively informed about the entire external evaluation process.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AKKORK – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
AKKORK
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – QQI – Partial compliance (2019) incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the use of site visits. The Committee noted that site visits are not used in some processes, but that this was adequately explained by a “lighter touch in recognition of the greater responsibility held by those providers” (p. 27). The Register Committee concurred with the panel that the alternative approach used is effective and robust in the light of the process' objectives.The Register Committee noted that QQI has finalised its external quality assurance processes and moved to full implementation of most processes since the last review.The external review report, however, noted that for independent private providers “no cyclical institutional reviews have taken place as a result of the delay in approving those providers’ Quality Assurance Procedures through Re-engagement” (p. 28). While the report cited a combination of reasons for that and underlined that it was not the result of poor intentions on the part of the agency, the report noted that some providers may actually go up to 12 years without an institutional review. The panel further noted that the “risk of concerns about quality going unnoticed in these providers” was partly, but not wholly, mitigated by QQI having more intensive engagement with them through theirprogramme validation relationship (p. 28).In light of the incomplete implementation of reviews for independent private providers the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance, but considered that QQI only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry