Precedents database

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	student involvement; public information on criteria used
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review report noted that ASIIN’s certification committee did not currently include a student member. The Register Committee therefore considered that the involvement of stakeholders in the design and decision-making process was not fully ensured as required by the standard. The review report noted that only criteria that comply with the ESG can be chosen for evaluations (type 1). The report, however, noted that this was not made clear to the public. The Register Committee further noted that it was not explained in detail how this is verified by ASIIN. The Committee therefore considered that the requirement of external quality assurance processes being defined and designed to ensure their fitness for purpose was not complied with as regards evaluations. The Register Committee was able to verify that a student member was appointed to the certification committee, as noted in ASIIN's additional representation. The Register Committee further noted that ASIIN had clarified in its public information that the criteria in type-1 evaluations, including those of third parties, must be compatible with the ESG.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	methodology
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“15. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the site-visit the provider accreditation was a desk-based procedure conducted by the MFHEA’s staff. The Register Committee is concerned about the fitness for purpose of this procedure for regulating providers’ access to the higher education sector. As noted by the panel, the methodology differs for providers seeking university status and for other providers of higher education. The Committee noted that it was unclear for the panel which methodology is applied when.

16. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that these concerns have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation. Furthermore, MFHEA explained that all procedures now include a site-visit by a review panel (see more under ESG 2.3).

17. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. The Committee could however not confirm whether and how the updated procedures are implemented in practice.

18. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that it had addressed the panel’s concerns regarding the provider accreditation procedures in the new manual, which has been in use for all provider accreditation procedures as of January

2024. Furthermore, the agency reaffirmed this will also be addressed for all programme accreditation procedures when the new Programme Accreditation Manual will come into force as of January

2025.

19. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	25/10/2022
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that in the implementation of ESG 1.9 the review panel considered how AQU’s different activities address the cyclicity of external reviews. The Committee, however, underlined that the focus of the standard is on the monitoring and periodical review of programmes as part of the institutions internal QA, ensuring that objectives set for the programmes are achieved and that monitoring processes lead to the continuous improvement of the programme.

Given that the Register Committee was unable to draw a definitive conclusion on how ESG 1.9 is addressed in AQU’s activities, the issue should thus receive close attention in AQU’s next review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	lack of coverage for certain ESG Part 1 standards in international programme accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. The review report showed that several standards of ESG Part 1 (1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10) are not addressed in (international) programme accreditation. While HCERES explained to the panel that they adapt their standards according to the foreign context, this creates a situation where a study programme might be accredited by HCERES without having been assessed against the full ESG Part 1.

10. The panel considered that (international) programme accreditations are small in number compared to (national) programme evaluations and other activities of HCERES. The Register Committee, however, considered that the issue at hand is not an occasional or statistical error, but a structural and systemic deficiency for an entire external quality assurance activity of HCERES.

11. As a programme accredited by HCERES will be regarded as ESG-aligned by the public, confirmed by the entry of those programmes in DEQAR, the lack of full ESG Part 1 coverage represents a substantial shortcoming. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel's conclusion that HCERES complies with the standard, but concluded that HCERES only partially complies with ESG 2.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	How ESG Part 1 is embedded in subject-specific label reviews
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its Change Report Decision of 02/11/2020, the Register Committee requested that the next external review of ASIIN considers how the agency ensures sufficient coverage of ESG Part 1 in its combined (“piggybacking”) procedures (ESG 2.1). The agency explained that ESG Part 1 is embedded as a standard procedure in every external QA activity carried out (Self Evaluation Report p. 35). Having considered how ESG Part 1 is mapped against ASIIN’s seals while also including the standards of the German Accreditation Council, the panel was convinced of the coverage and link to ESG Part 1 in all its activities. The documents confirmed that all subject-specific label requirements are assessed in addition to ASIIN's generic standards for degree programmes, which incorporate ESG Part 1. The panel also underlined that SAR templates for each review method were structured to follow ESG Part 1. The Register Committee was therefore satisfied that ESG Part 1 is sufficiently addressed in ASIIN’s combined (“piggybacking”) procedures.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2021
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Incomplete coverage of Part 1 of the ESG
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that AAQ does not cover ESG 1.3 (Student-centred

learning, teaching and assessment) and covers ESG 1.2 (Design and

approval of programme) only partially in the criteria for institutional

accreditation. These standards are only fully covered in programme accreditation,

which is voluntary except for health professions. As institutional

accreditation is the core activity of the agency and the only mandatory

external quality assurance for all Swiss institutions, it should assure full

coverage of ESG Part 1 by itself.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Narrow focus in addressing Part 1 of the ESG
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel stated that requirements of ESG Part 1 are reflected in AKAST’s own guidelines for institutional evaluation and that the new review criteria to be applied by AKAST for accreditation of canonical study programmes in Germany follows the ESG. The Register Committee found the review panel’s analysis brief and lacking in analysis. However the Committee took note of the “equivalence” table” provided by the agency, mapping how ESG 1.1 to 1.10 are addressed in the agency’s programme accreditation procedures and found that standards are addressed implicitly, with a limited coverage, in particular with regards to ESG 1.1, ESG 1.3 and ESG 1.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 insufficiently covered; Lack of clear guidance what should be evaluated by experts
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Reviewing each of the agency’s procedures individually the review panel showed that the independent evaluation procedure (international accreditation of educational programmes) does not sufficiently cover aspects related to ESG Part 1, concerning student- centred learning and teaching, the system for consideration of students’ appeals and complaints.In its additional representation the agency stated that new indicators have been added covering these matters and provided a full self-assessment with the mapping of its criteria to the ESG. In case of professional-public accreditations the panel was not able to gather conclusive evidence about what criteria are checked by the expert panel in these reviews. Following the analysis of AKKORK’s own standards and their correlation with ESG (according to the agency’s additional information) the Register Committee took note of the mapping and revisions, but could not conclude whether all concerns of the panel have been addressed. The Committee further underlined that the revised criteria still had to be officially approved, tested and implemented by AKKORK in its professional-public accreditation procedures. The Register Committee noted that experts do not have clear guidelines on what they are expected to evaluate and how to refer back to the agency’s own criteria. In its additional representation AKKORK provided its revised guidelines (as of 30/01/2020) describing its procedures and the assessment criteria that experts are expected to follow. The Register Committee welcomed the revised version of the guidelines, but noted that its use and implementation has yet to be reviewed by an external review panel. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 reflected in evalag’s criteria
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“When evalag’s registration was last renewed, it was flagged for attention whether all standards of Part 1 of the ESG are consistently addressed in evalag’s accreditations and evaluations.The Register Committee noted the panel’s comprehensive analysis, based on evalag’s SAR and mapping tables, of how Part 1 of the ESG is reflected in the agency’s different sets of criteria. The Committee concluded that the flag has been addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 not clearly reflected in some processes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The review panel concluded that “the quality assurance processes described in Part 1 of the ESG should be addressed with more detail in the assessments carried out outside Germany” (p. 30).

11. In its statement on the review report, AHPGS referred to additional explanations added to the corresponding handbooks in this regard. In the additional representation, AHPGS made these changes more visible in the text.

12. The Register Committee considered that this demonstrates in theory how ESG Part 1 will be addressed in more detail in future assessments, while the practical impact of those changes remains to be evaluated in detail within the next external review of AHPGS.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ASIIN
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	scope of the ESG, EQF level 5/short cycle, partial qualifications, alternative providers, QF-EHEA as decisive reference point
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (29/04/2025)
RC decision	Non-compliance

“10. The external review panel noted that ECTE accredits institutions and programmes which belong to the “category of post-secondary courses/programmes” and which – in the panel's view – “are not covered by the ESG”. In particular, the panel refers to programmes such as Certificates1 in Theology, Diploma2 in Theology or the Postgraduate Certificate3 in Theology according to Appendix A of ECTE's Standards and Guidelines (see p. 15 of the review report).

11. In its response to EQAR's clarification request, the panel noted that it was “obvious for the panel that both the ESG and EQAR registration only cover formal tertiary education at bachelor and master level (levels 6 and 7 EQF)”4.

12. ECTE – in its standards – portrayed a “Certificate” as a partial qualification at/within EQF level 5 and a “Diploma” as a short-cycle, EQF level 5 qualification. In principle, short-cycle qualifications at EQF level 5 can be considered as part of the QF-EHEA. Moreover, the ESG generally cover higher education in its broadest sense and can also be applied to provision that is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree. [...]

14. Given that EQF level 5 and provision outside full formal degree programmes is not per se excluded from the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee confirmed this in the tripartite Terms of Reference.

15. The Register Committee considered that the distinction made by the panel between accreditation of higher education within the scope of the ESG and “post-secondary education” outside the scope of the ESG cannot be derived from the Terms of Reference, nor from ECTE's own presentation of its work. [...]

28. In the case of an alternative provider, the quality assurance procedure carried out by an EQAR-registered agency might be the only occasion to externally verify whether the education offered by the alternative provider is indeed at higher education level in terms of its learning outcomes. Therefore, the Committee found that attention to ESG Part 1 and in particular ESG 1.2 with its requirement that the qualification resulting from a programme should refer to the correct level of the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) are of crucial importance in the domain of alternative providers.

29. Given that ECTE accredits a large number of alternative providers (see also under ESG 3.1) the Register Committee underlined that ESG 2.1 was a particularly crucial standard; it sought to ascertain that criteria are robust, fully aligned with the QF-EHEA and applied stringently in all cases, so as to protect the label and designation of what will be perceived as “higher education”.

30. With a view to the discussion on scope above, the Register Committee understood that the review panel clearly did not confirm whether ECTE's criteria for Certificate in Theology, Diploma in Theology and Postgraduate Certificate in Theology are correctly aligned with the QF-EHEA. As noted above, the quotes provided by ECTE from its Certification Framework cannot replace an external panel's analysis of the alignment in theory and practice.

31. As the Register Committee considers the accreditation of such programmes fully pertinent to the application (see above), this necessarily leads to a conclusion of non-compliance with ESG 2.1 as well.

32. The QF-EHEA further expects that students “have demonstrated knowledge and understanding in a field of study” upon completion of their studies. In general, ECTE's standards state that “theology” was the field of study they refer to. [...]

35. ECTE generally refers to the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) in its framework and communication. While the Register Committee saw this as a legitimate choice, the Committee underlined that the analysis and formal assessment in respect of ESG 2.1 always need to refer to the QF-EHEA descriptors as a benchmark, given that the QF-EHEA is the framework adopted by the EHEA and referred to in ESG 1.2.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	New standards published, but not reported to EQAR
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that following the site-visit of its external review, CTI prepared and published (in February 2019) a new version of its standards and guidelines (R&O) for the accreditation of study programmes. While the revised R&O is expected to take into account the (minor) shortcomings identified by the panel in CTI’s coverage of ESG Part 1, these changes have not been included in the application to EQAR, nor reported via change report. The Register Committee therefore underlined that CTI is expected to report such substantial changes in its methodology immediately after they are adopted. CTI is thus expected to provide without delay a change report providing further information i.e. mapping of its new R&O against ESG Part 1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 reflected in the agency’s external QA
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous decision of renewal of IEP’s registration, the Register Committee flagged for attention the extent to which the different elements of Part 1 of the ESG were reflected in the agency’s institutional evaluation reports. The Register Committee noted the review panel findings that show that IEP amended the guidelines for institutions as well as the guidelines for evaluation teams to directly reference 2015 ESG Part 1. The panel commended IEP’s efforts to analyse reports and to provide clear guidance on implementing the ESG standard 2.1. Having considered the mapping of ESG part I and the analysis of the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry