Database of Precedents
-
2.6 Reporting – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) publication of reports, negative
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports, negative Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. In its previous decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of publication of reports with negative results of its ex-ante verification of study programmes.
8. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA now publishes reports with negative and positive results of all evaluations processes except for reviews of universities for recognition on its website. From the report, the Committee learned that these reviews only occur by a request from the regional ministry and are sporadic. The Committee further understood that the agency is not authorised to publish the reports as this is in the remit of the regional parliament.
9. Given the improvements made in publication of the negative reports, the Register Committee could concur with the panel that the agency now complies with the standard. The Register Committee, nevertheless, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should raise the issue with the publication of the results of the reviews of universities for recognition with the regional authorities to ensure that these reports are made available to the public.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) internal appeals system
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords internal appeals system Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “10. In its last decision, the Register Committee raised concerns regarding the lack of an internal appeals system within the agency and as a result found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard.
11. The Register Committee noted that since the last review of ACCUA the agency has established a separate body within the agency responsible for appeals. Furthermore, the panel noted that the appeals procedure is clear, publicly available and ensures impartiality in decision-making by the Appeals Committee.
12. The Register Committee thus found that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous report and therefore can follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) stakeholders invovlement
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholders invovlement Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of stakeholders involvement on governance level and its lack of strategic planning.
14. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous review. The Committee noted that ACCUA has involved students and other stakeholder as members of the Governing Council of the agency. Furthermore, the Committee noted that ACCUA adopted an Initial Action Plan which is well-conceived to carry forwards the agency's mission and vision.
15. Following the improvements towards ESG compliance undertaken by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – ACCUA – Partial compliance (2024) government,
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords government, Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “16. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the representation of stakeholders in the Governing Council has improved compared to the previous review and that the share of Government appointees in this body has been lowered.
17. The Committee, however, also noted that the regional minister, whose portfolio the agency is situated in, is acting as the President of the agency, chairs the Governing Council and has a casting vote.
18. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted, as underlined by the panel, that the agency is dependent on the Regional Government’s approval for hiring both temporary and permanent staff, which limits the agency’s operational autonomy.
19. Considering the significant level of involvement of the regional government in the governing of the agency and the potential constraints over the staff management and the operational independence of the agency, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement and concluded that ACCUA complies partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) thematic report
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords thematic report Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “20. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA has created a statistical analysis unit and produced five thematic reports since the last external review. However, as noted by the panel, out of the five reports only one can be considered as a thematic analysis in the sense of the standard, since the other four reports provided useful inputs for policy debates with regional stakeholders and for improvements in quality assurance at universities.
21. The Register Committee finds, in line with its interpretation of the standard, that the thematic analysis report in question is sufficient for achieving compliance with the standard and therefore could not follow the panel’s judgement of partial compliance and concluded that ACCUA complies with ESG 3.4.
22. The Register Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should devise a clear plan for thematic studies and use its evaluation reports to produce these studies.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – ACCUA – Partial compliance (2024) internal quality asssurnace system
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords internal quality asssurnace system Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “23. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of development and proper implementation of its internal quality assurance system.
24. The Register Committee understood, from the panel analysis, that the agency has made a significant progress, by introducing a number of internal mechanisms, reviewing policies, procedures and guides. The panel noted that, however, the agency does not yet have a full internal quality assurance system in place, but intends to work on this in the coming period.
25. While the Register Committee welcomed the progress made by the agency. The Committee noted that, however, a well-rounded internal quality assurance system that synchronises the newly introduced tools is yet to be set. Therefore, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be partially compliant 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
-
2.4 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
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Stakeholder involvement in governance
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement in governance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “15. The Register Committee learned that the governing body of AQUIB (i.e., the Board of Directors), is composed exclusively of representatives of the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the regional government. The Board does not include student members nor other stakeholders.
16. The Register Committee learned that AQUIB has prepared a draft of the new Statutes which, in the review panel’s view, would ensure a more representative composition of the Board of Directors. However, these Statutes are not yet in force at the time of the review.
17. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement in AQUIB’s governance, 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
-
3.3 Independence – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Independence, government representatives
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Independence, government representatives Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “18. The Register Committee understood from the analysis by the panel that the composition of the Board of Directors has dominant representation of the government and the UIB, and these two stakeholders appoint all six board members.
19. The Register Committee further learned that according to statutes, the Director of the agency is appointed by the Balearic minister responsible for university affairs. Since 2009, however, this position is vacant and the Technical Director, chosen with a public competition, manages the agency.
20. The Register Committee understood that to resolve the above mentioned issues new statutes of the Consortium of the Balearic Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education has been drafted. The statutes, however, are not yet in effect. Following this, the Committee concurred with the panel that AQUIB only partially complies with ESG 3.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Thematic analysis
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Thematic analysis Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “21. The Register Committee learned from the report that AQUIB has a Thematic Analysis Protocol for a systematic approach to conducting thematic analyses, which was adopted in 2023 and is being implemented for the first time. However, the topic of the only thematic analysis conducted so far does not incorporate the results of its external quality assurance procedures.
22. Considering that the only thematic analysis conducted by AQUIB so far is outside the scope of ESG, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.
23. 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 – 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
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – VLUHR QA – Compliance (2024) Thematic analysis
VLUHR QA
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Thematic analysis Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. 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 agency did not publish thematic analysis based on the findings of external quality assurance activities.
14. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that VLUHR QA has completed three thematic analysis reports since their last review and the number of reports aligns with the level of activity of the agency. Additionally, thematic analysis has been integrated into VLUHR QA’s daily work and in the current Policy Plan (2023-2027).
15. Furthermore, the Register Committee understood that VLUHR QA focusses on the thematic analyses being relevant to higher education stakeholders and ministry representatives, rather than solely concentrating on the outcomes of external review results.
16. The Register Committee was able to follow panel’s conclusion that VLUHR QA is now compliant with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ACSUG – Partial compliance (2024) Separate and independent appeal body
ACSUG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 26/11/2024 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Separate and independent appeal body Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “7. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that the Galician
Committee for Reports, Assessment, Certification and Accreditation (CGIACA) was
responsible for the evaluation, certification and accreditation and also for the
appeals following these reviews.
8. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that ACSUG has
set ap an appeal body (Review Committee). This body, however, has no decision-
making power as it can only provide a recommendation and return the case to the
original decision-making body, Galician Committee for Reports, Assessment,
Certification and Accreditation (CGIACA).
9. The Register Committee further noted from the analysis that the president
of CGIACA is a non-voting, member of the Review Committee. In panel’s view, due
to this organisational arrangement, the Review Committee and CGIACA are not
sufficiently separate and independent of each other as there is a possibility of a
CGIACA member also participating in the Review Committee meetings and
therefore potentially influence the discussions of the appeals’ body.
10. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency regarding
establishing a separate body for appeals and reiterated that such a body needs to
be independent and separate, with full autonomy to make recommendations
regarding the appeal in question. However, it is sufficient that such a body makes
recommendations instead of final decisions on the result of external evaluation.
11. The Committee followed the panel’s view that there is lack of clear
separation between the accreditation (CGIACA) and appeal body (Review
Committee) of ACSUG and therefore concurred with the panel that ACSUG
complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACSUG – Partial compliance (2024) Lack of strategic plan and deficiencies in strategic management, lack of yearly planning and monitoring, distinction between the agency's consultancy services and external QA processes
ACSUG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 26/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Lack of strategic plan and deficiencies in strategic management, lack of yearly planning and monitoring, distinction between the agency's consultancy services and external QA processes Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “12. The Register Committee learned from the review report that this standard
was not originally included in the targeted review, but the panel decided to include
it after considering all the evidence and input of the review as a whole.
13. From the review report, the Register Committee noted that since the last
strategy expired, ACSUG did not develop a new strategic plan. The Committee
further noted that ACSUG is lacking reliable yearly planning and monitoring that
would be linked to such a strategic plan. The panel found that this leads to
significant deficiencies in strategic management of the agency.
14. The Register Committee further understood from the analysis of the panel
that ACSUG lacks a clear communication and definitive distinction between the
agency's consultancy services and external QA processes.
15. Following the lack of strategic planning of ACSUG and absence of clear
distinction between its external quality assurance and consultancy activities, the
Register Committee concurred with the panel that ACSUG complies only partially
with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – ACSUG – Partial compliance (2024) Governmental influence, limited budget execution autonomy, limited human resources management autonomy
ACSUG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 26/11/2024 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Governmental influence, limited budget execution autonomy, limited human resources management autonomy Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “16. In its last decision, the Register Committee concluded that ACSUG complies
only partially with ESG 3.3 due to the strong influence of the regional government
over the process for appointment of the Director, the chair and members of the
Governing Board and the chairs of the CGIACA, leading to diminished organisational
independence of the agency.
17. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that no
change has taken place and that the Ministry still has a decisive role in the
appointment procedures of these ACSUG bodies.
18. The Register Committee further understood from the analysis of the panel
that ACSUG has limited autonomy in how to utilise its budget and manage its
human resources.
19. Following the strong influence of the regional government over the
agency, as well as ACSUG’s lack of autonomy in managing its resources, the
Register Committee concurred with the panel that ACSUG complies only partially
with ESG 3.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – ACSUG – Partial compliance (2024) Collaborative thematic analysis, lack of regularity
ACSUG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 26/11/2024 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Collaborative thematic analysis, lack of regularity Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “20. In its last decision, the Register Committee found that no thematic analysis)
was performed, and therefore concluded that ACSUG complies only partially with
ESG 3.4.
21. The Register Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that
ACSUG relies on collaboration with, and contributes to, the thematic analyses
coordinated by the Spanish Network of University Quality Agencies (REACU).
However, The Committee also understood that ACSUG does not have any stand-
alone thematic analyses that they conduct themselves and that thematic analysis is
still not included in the regular workflows and task distribution of the agency (see
also Register Committee remarks under ESG 3.1).
22. The Register Committee emphasised that conducting thematic analyses
under the partnership with REACU does not fulfil the requirements of the standard
because the regularity of such activities is sporadic, and ACSUG is dependent on the
thematic analysis coordinator (REACU).
23. Following the lack of thematic analysis conducted by ACSUG, the Register
Committee concurred with the panel that ACSUG complies only partially with ESG
3.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – ACSUG – Compliance (2024) Addressing recommendations from the previous external review
ACSUG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 26/11/2024 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords Addressing recommendations from the previous external review Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “24. In line with the EQAR Use and Interpretation of the ESG, the Register
Committee understands that ESG 3.6. implies that previous recommendations and
instances of partial compliance have been addressed properly.
25. The Register Committee noted that ACSUG has not responded
appropriately to most of the instances of partial compliance raised in a previous
external review, and had regressed in one standard (3.1), which has negative
implications for ACSUG’s level of compliance with ESG 3.6. The Register Committee
therefore once again emphasises the recommendations delivered by the 2019 and
2024 review panel and expects that these issues are addressed in the next (full)
review of ACSUG.”
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
-
2.4 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