Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Methodologies under revision at the time of the renewal
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are clearly addressed in AAQ’s procedures, with two exceptions: the review report noted that AAQ’s methodologies for evaluations and accreditation of basic medical training are currently under revision. The Register Committee underlined that AAQ is required to make (a) Substantive Change Report(s) once the revisions have been completed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Insufficient coverage of ESG 2.1
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Looking at systemic level, the

different regulations touch upon the three particular standards of Part 1 of the ESG. However, the full coverage of all the standards of Part 1 is still not ensured through agency’s own criteria. Partial coverage of aspects through national legislation does not substitute coverage through external QA procedures and coverage of the ESG part 1 by higher education institutions’ internal QA is a prerequisite for EQA being able to assess their implementation”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Standards for accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (29/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee was unclear on whether IAAR used specific sets of standards for the above-mentioned accreditations and, if so, whether the panel had addressed their compliance with Part 1 of the ESG. The Committee therefore requested the panel to clarify this matter (letter of 25/04/2017). In its clarification letter (of 06/05/2017) the panel stated that IAAR had developed detailed sets of standards that follow a similar framework as in the case of IAAR’s regular accreditation procedure. The panel added that while the review did not permit a full enquiry into the variations of the field specific standards the panel was satisfied that the procedure was similarly implemented across all sets of standards and that they were published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Alignment of the ECCE’s criteria with the ESG Part 1
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (29/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee further noted that the standards have not been amended following publication of the revised ESG and that no specific mapping or analysis was carried out on how ECCE’s criteria and procedures address ESG Part 1. Based on its own analysis and interviews carried out, the panel concluded that Part 1 of the ESG was “transversally” reflected within ECCE’s standards. The Register Committee requested the panel to further elaborate on this matter. In its response letter (of 15/11/2016) the panel stated that the focus of the analysis was the link between external and internal QA and that this was well established. The panel further added that “whilst it could not be demonstrated on a one to one basis that the standards 1.1 - 10 were addressed, the panel satisfied itself that the link existed”. In the additional representation, ECCE provided a mapping of the link between the ESG Part 1 and its own standards. The Register Committee considered the mapping and noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are addressed in the agency's criteria and processes for institutions/programmes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Addressing IQA
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (29/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“Given that the standards relating to design and approval of programmes (1.2), student-centred learning, teaching and assessment (1.3), student admission, progression, recognition, certification (1.4) and ongoing monitoring and periodic review of programmes (1.9) do not seem to be considered in ACPUA’s institutional-level activities (according to the table on alignment with the ESG) the Register Committee asked the panel (letter of 04/11/2016) to confirm whether they are in fact addressed within ACPUA’s programme accreditation procedures.It its response (letter of 20/11/2016) the Chair of the panel confirmed that the programme accreditation procedures (ex-ante accreditation, follow-up and ex-post accreditation) touch upon all standards of Part 1. As the review took place soon after the publication of the new ESG, the panel could not sufficiently well verify the focus on the new issues brought by ESG 2015, i.e. ESG 1.3 student-centred learning has not been explicitly stated in ACPUA’s evaluation criteria but the panel found there is significant ongoing discussion on how to best approach its inclusion. he Register Committee noted that although ACPUA performs several types of reviews in collaboration with ANECA or with other regional quality assurance agencies (i.e. DOCENTIA, AUDIT reviews) and thus it might not be in the position to modify the criteria and processes, the agency retains full responsibility for how it addresses Part 1 of the ESG in its own procedures that are carried out autonomously irrespective of whether such procedures are voluntary or obligatory in their nature”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

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

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

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

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

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	ESG part 1, implementation in practice
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The Register Committee understood from the analysis by the panel that only one external quality assurance activity, EQA Audit, covered all standards of the ESG Part 1 in full. Both provider accreditation and programme accreditation procedures did not cover ESG Part 1 in full.

11. The Committee learned that during the site-visit the panel was presented with the draft versions of the new Provider accreditation Manual and the new Programme Accreditation Manual and noted that further alignment with ESG Part 1 is expected to be ensured through these documents. In its statement on the report, MFHEA informed that the Provider Accreditation Manual has been published and in use as of January 2024 and the Programme Accreditation Manual will be in use as of January

2025.

12. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm without a panel insight whether the new standards and procedures have been implemented in practice.

13. In its additional representation, MFHEA confirmed that its Provider Accreditation Manual came into force in January 2024 and that now all provider accreditation procedures follow the new methodology. MFHEA further informed that the Programme Accreditation Manual will be officially presented by the agency in November 2024 (see clarification of 2024-09-24) and the same will be in place for all programme accreditation procedures as of January 2025.

14. The Register Committee welcomed, once again, the actions taken by the agency in order to ensure that all MFHEA activities cover ESG Part 1 in full. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without panel insight. Therefore, the Committee upheld its initial judgement that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 insufficiently covered, inconsistency in addressing Part 1 standards in different procedures.
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. ANVUR conducts wide variety of external quality assurance procedures in its national higher education system. The Committee understood that some of the activities are applied in conjunction to each other (e.g. initial programme accreditation combines in certain elements with periodic institutional assessment of universities).

11. From the review panel report, the Register Committee learned that ANVUR aims to cover all the ESG Part 1 standards holistically through different combinations of their EQA activities taken together (e.g. ESG 1.9 is not assessed each time an initial programme accreditation is conducted but is instead included in the periodic institutional assessment of the university).

12. The Register Committee took note of the different combinations of ANVUR’s external quality assurance activities. It, however, learned that even in this case, few of the standards (e.g. ESG 1.6, ESG 1.7, ESG 1.8 and ESG 1.9) are not fully covered yet. The Committee learned from the analysis that the procedures which do not address all standards of the ESG Part 1 on their own (i.e. complementary activities such as the initial accreditation and periodic assessment) do not do so even in combination with at least one other self-standing activity (see remark on the ESG 2.1 in the EQAR Use and Interpretations of the ESG ).

13. The Register Committee further learned that there is a level of inconsistency in integrating ESG Part 1 in different external QA activities of ANVUR, for example ESG 1.9 being considered only in the initial accreditation of PhD programmes, but not in other procedures.

14. The Register Committee found that the agency is yet to effectively translate standards 1.1 – 1.10 of the ESG into all of its activities and demonstrate that the complementary activities jointly address ESG Part 1 fully. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that ANVUR complies only partially with ESG 2.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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