Precedents database
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – NVAO – Compliance (2023) coverage of ESG Part1
NVAO
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords coverage of ESG Part1 Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision Compliance “11. The Register Committee noted that a protocol for the assessment of transnational education in the Netherlands (NL) came into effect in
2018. The Committee however could not find any information on whether NVAO-NL has addressed the standards of ESG Part 1 (ESG 1.1-ESG 1.10) in its new protocol and has therefore sought further clarification from the panel.
12. The panel explained (see clarification letter) that a transnational education programme may be provided on the condition that the programme abroad is equal to the one accredited in the Netherlands. This may only concern programmes that have already been accredited in the Netherlands. Given this condition, the review panel explained that the study programmes abroad follow the same accreditation protocol as the programmes accredited in the Netherlands.
13. The Register Committee understands that ESG Part 1 has been verified by the panel for the renewed 2018 NVAO-NL assessment framework and noted that a clear link between the institution’s internal and the NVAO’s external quality assurance procedures was ensured.
14. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standards 2.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IEP – Compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
IEP
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Internal quality assurance Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. The review report showed that the coverage of the particular standards is ensured with guiding questions for institutions and for review teams. However, the evaluation reports are still not checked with a specific focus on how ESG is covered by the IEP Secretariat.
8. While the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be compliant with the standard, it highlighted the panel’s recommendation on importance of systematic signposting of ESG Part 1 criteria in the evaluation reports.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – QQI – Compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
QQI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Internal quality assurance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “9. In its previous decision the Register Committee found the agency to be compliant with ESG 2.1. As per the
Policy on Targeted Reviews, ESG 2.1 shall always be part of the external review process. The Register Committee noted that all procedures share an underlying framework infrastructure for all of it external quality assurance activities that reflects well the standards of ESG Part 1.
10. The Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that QQI continues to be compliant with ESG 2.1.
11. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ECTE – Partial compliance (2023) Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers
ECTE
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “11. ECTE was found to be non-compliant with ESG 2.1 following its initial review (see report of 2021-08-06) and the following Register Committee decision of 2022-06-28.
12. The Register Committee’s first concern was whether all ESG Part 1 were clearly enshrined in the ECTE standards for their new integrated review, covering both institutional and programme accreditation.
13. In its focused review, the panel analysed and confirmed that the integrated standards “cover all ESG I criteria”, based also on an analysis of the five accreditation procedures that took place since January 2022; these procedures featured programmes of various levels, profiles and types of providers. The Register Committee therefore found the issue addressed.
14. The Register Committee’s second concern was whether qualifications awarded by alternative providers refer to the correct level of the QF-EHEA.
15. The Register Committee found that the review panel's analysis was very generic containing no specific insights or findings on whether the concern was addressed. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by the statement that ECTE Standards and Guidelines apply “uniformly to all ECTE programme levels (here 5-7), all types of providers (Higher Education Institutions as well as Alternative Providers) and all programme orientations (research and practice-oriented programmes)” given the fact that the learning outcomes in the Certification Framework differ between levels.
16. In its addendum to the report (submitted May 2, 2023) the panel clarified that all programmes accredited by the ECTE are classified as higher education and match the QF-EHEA descriptors, including practice-oriented programmes. The panel further explained that their formulation “of uniformly applied” meant to emphasise the use of one framework for different levels, in the way that programmes use one framework for evaluating different levels of programmes.
17. The Register Committee further found it hard to understand why the panel did not discuss the change of ECTE’s descriptors given the significant reduction in its detail and specificity. The Committee thus requested a comprehensive assessment on how ECTE’s subject-specific descriptors are considered in its new Certification Framework and on how the broad QF-EHEA descriptors themselves has impacted ECTE’s accreditation in practice.
18. The panel explained that they have not been aware of a different version of ECTE Certification Framework (earlier version published in 2019, analysed version published in September 2022)1, and thus only commented on the latest version.
19. In the view of the panel, ECTE’s documentation is consistently clear in requiring the application of ECTE standard B.2.1 (that concerns the application of QF-EHEA).
20. In its addendum to the report, the panel further provided an analysis of 16 reviews covering Short Cycle, First Cycle and Second Cycle qualifications delivered by alternative providers. The panel’s finding show that alternative providers have been specifically asked to link the learning outcomes of their programmes to the Dublin Descriptors and the associated higher education cycle.
21. The panel also checked whether ECTE evaluates the qualifications awarded by alternative providers at the correct QF-EHEA level and whether the intended learning outcomes and qualifications were in conformity with nationally agreed standards for theological education.
22. Following the consideration of the additional documentation, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that ECTE is, in practice, examining whether qualifications at different levels match the QF-EHEA level.
23. Considering the effectiveness of how ECTE addresses these standards within its review reports (B2.1 and B5.1), the Committee found there’s a wide variation in the level of detail and specificity, that may hinder the successful application and interpretation. The Committee thus found that this concern was only partially addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AIC – Partial compliance (2023) coverege of ESG Part 1
AIC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords coverege of ESG Part 1 Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “10. The Register Committee follows the panel’s analysis regarding the requirement of a public quality assurance policy (ESG 1.1), explicitly in the Inclusion of a licensed study programme on the accreditation form of a study field and the Accreditation of foreign study programmes frameworks. The Register Committee noted that AIC has yet to fully take up the national qualification framework (ESG 1.2) in each assessment framework, focussing more on assessment policies in all assessment frameworks, including a focus on student-centred assessment (ESG 1.3), and adding reference to public information (ESG 1.8) in the Inclusion of a licensed study programme on the accreditation form of a study field framework.
11. After consideration of the additional representation by AIC regarding the points addressed in the panel review report and the Register Committee decisions, the Register Committee concluded that even when considering that different procedures could be considered as a package, there are missing elements with regards to standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.8 in the QA model of the agency.
12. Therefore the Register Committee agrees with the argumentation of the panel and judgement of the standard only as partial compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AHPGS – Partial compliance (2024) Internal quality assurance
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Internal quality assurance Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found that AHPGS only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard, as the ESG Part 1 was not properly addressed in their external reviews outside Germany.
9. The Committee understood that in order to address these issues, AHPGS revised its handbooks for reviews abroad. Nevertheless, the Committee understood by the analysis of the panel, that the Handbook for Institutional Evaluations does not address standards 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 sufficiently.
10. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, that programme accreditation reports were in line with ESG Part 1, except one which did not follow AHPGS’s own criteria in full.
11. In a statement of the report (of 2024-05-17), AHPGS explained that in order to address the shortcomings underlined by the panel, it revised its handbooks for programme and institutional accreditation outside Germany.
12. The Committee welcomed the changes made by AHPGS. The Committee was, however, unable to conclude whether the adopted changes are implemented in practice without further panel insight and therefore they remain to be reviewed within the next external review of the agency. The Register Committee, therefore, concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency remains partially compliant with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – VLUHR QA – Partial compliance (2024) ESG Part 1
VLUHR QA
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords ESG Part 1 Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard, as the ESG Part 1 was not sufficiently addressed in the main activities of VLUHR QA.
9. The Register Committee understood from the panel report that, since the last review, VLUHR QA has started employing a new framework for assessing programs in Flanders, which consists of eight quality features (QF). The new framework is stipulated by Flemish decree and must be implemented by the QA agencies evaluating programmes in Flanders.
10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the new quality framework still does not directly address certain elements of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4. There is no explicit mention that institutions must have a public quality policy (ESG 1.1) or processes for programme approval (ESG 1.2); nor it is addressed explicitly that “the internal processes of the university to ensure the monitoring of support processes for students at all stages of the lifecycle” (ESG 1.4).
11. The Register Committee also learned that VLUHR QA has addressed the missing elements only in the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report for higher education institutions. These elements are not covered in the Manual Programme Review, the main document followed by the external reviewers.
12. While the Register Committee understood that the new Flemish Framework addresses ESG to a higher extent than the previous one, the absence of ESG 1.1, ESG 1.2 and ESG 1.4 in the Framework and in the Manual raises concerns about the possibility of them being overlooked during the assessment. Therefore, the Register Committee found that VLUHR QA only partially complies to the standard and highlighted the panel’s recommendation on including the content of the Guide for drawing up a self-evaluation report in the Manual Programme Review.”
Full decision: see agency register entry