Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports; publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“9. Since the registration on EQAR (in 2015-01-31), BAC has been found partially compliant due to concerns on the quality of its reports and lack of publication of negative reports. In the last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-11-02), the Register Committee noted that the reports provided insufficient qualitative insight and lacked clear and consistent inclusion of evidence, analysis, and findings. Additionally, BAC still have not had published any negative reports and decisions.

10. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that while BAC has revised its report template in order to provide more references to evidence and analytical content, the concerns on the quality of reports remained pertinent. As noted by the panel, while inspectors analyse a substantial amount of evidence, this is not always reflected in the inspection reports.

11. The Register Committee also learned from the panel analysis that, although the agency has changed its policy to publish negative reports and decisions, they have not had any negative reports in practice since their last review.

12. The Register Committee acknowledged the actions taken by the agency towards ensuring publication of all of its reports. The Committee, however, considered that the quality of reporting, including the insufficient evidence in the inspection reports, persists to be an issue. Following this, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Lack of thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“13. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2020-11-02), the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard due to the limited thematic analysis, both regarding volume and content of the report. At the time, the agency had produced only one thematic analysis, which was descriptive and summarised the contents of inspection reports.

14. The Register Committee learned from the review report that BAC had not produced any thematic analysis since the last external review. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the agency had started working on a new approach to writing thematic analysis and had included stakeholders in the process.

15. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that the agency only partially complies with standard and emphasised the panel’s recommendation to urgently develop precise plans for conducting thematic analysis and start conducting them.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Keywords	Stakeholder involvement in developing methodologies
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“12. The Register Committee learned from the external review report that even though the agency generally involves stakeholders in its work, they were not directly involved in the consultation process regarding the national protocol for the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

13. While the Register Committee could follow the panel's view that the agency is compliant with the standard based on its general practice of involving stakeholders in the design of its methodologies, the Committee followed the panel’s recommendation and emphasised that this practice should be employed in the development of all of the agency’s methodologies, without exemption.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Site visits; Lack of structured follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“14. In panel’s view the site visits of the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes are insufficient in both duration and depth. Specifically, the interviews during the site visits were only limited to teaching staff and management, while the site visits were held online, preventing the reviewers from assessing the infrastructure of all institutions and other relevant contextual information.

15. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that the procedure does not include a structured follow-up mechanism and is based on a permanent exchange of documents between the agency and institutions.

16. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL explained their plans to address concerns regarding the format of the site visit and to align the procedure and methodology of the new activity with the requirements set out in the agreed European framework of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

17. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans but noted that they remain to be implemented and externally reviewed. Therefore, in light of the existing deficiencies in site visits and unstructured follow-up mechanisms for the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ACSUCYL is partially compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Quality of reports, lack of publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The Register Committee understood from the panel’s analysis that the final reports resulting from the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes differ substantially from the draft reports prepared by the review panel. This is due to the possibility given to the Degree Assessment Commission (DAC), the responsible body for assessment, certification, and accreditation, to modify the draft expert reports.

19. The Register Committee further noted that during the interim stage of the review, higher education institutions, besides providing factual comments, can also address the shortcomings identified in the draft expert reports, with these results being considered and later included in the final report by the DAC. This process can lead to changes in judgements, removal of recommendations and suggestions, and substantial alterations of the text prepared by the expert panels.

20. In their statement to the report (Annex 2), the agency clarified that addressing shortcomings identified in the draft report is part of ex-ante verification for new degrees since the programmes are not yet implemented and the final modifications are evaluated before the publication of the final report.

21. The Register Committee further learned that the reports from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes lacked a critical appraisal of the evidence, which is primarily based on self-evaluation reports and supporting documentation rather than gathered during site visits.

22. The Register Committee additionally learned from the panel analysis that the agency does not publish negative reports from its ex-ante procedures. This could not be specifically verified for the reports resulting from the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, since only two reviews have been completed at the moment of the site visit, both with a positive outcome.

23. In their statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they publish negative reports except for ones resulting from ex-ante procedures, as their platform does not allow inclusion of reports on programmes that are not listed in the University Register of Centres and Degrees, the Spanish national register of degrees and university centres. However, the agency publishes these reports on DEQAR.

24. The Register Committee considered the agency’s explanation but underlined that, as per the standard, all reports should be published irrespective of the outcome. Furthermore, the Committee emphasised that in the aim of strengthening transparency, when ACSUCYL’s reports are published on any platform, including the agency’s website, this should include all reports.

25. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL presented their plans to address the issues of the format and quality of the reports and to create a dedicated working group for this task. Additionally, the agency noted that they have already started publishing negative ex-ante reports on their website, and the repository now includes all the historical data as well.

26. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans to address concerns on the format and quality of reports and was able to verify that the agency is now publishing its ex-ante reports. The Committee, however, found that the actions presented to address the remaining concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee are yet to be introduced, implemented in practice, and evaluated through external review.

27. The Register Committee acknowledged concerns raised by the panel about the lack of evidence in the review reports and the alterations made by the DAC, noting that the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes does not comply with the standard. Nevertheless, under the assumption that the rest of the activities remain compliant with the standard since the last full review, the Register Committee concluded that ACSUCYL overall complies partially with ESG 2.6.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Student involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“28. In the last decision of renewal of registration, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of student involvement in the agency’s governance and work. To offer students the opportunity to contribute to governance and operations, the agency at that time established a Student Board, however, only as an advisory board without further involvement in the agency’s decision-making. The Register Committee found that students have not been included as members of the Board of Directors (the governance body of the agency). While ACSUCYL made attendance of students at the meetings of the Board of Directors possible since October 2021, the agency has not yet utilised it in practice.

29. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that since the last review, the agency included a student in the Degree Assessment Commission.

30. In its statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they have not employed this in practice because, since the change, the Board of Directors' meetings have only addressed management, administrative, and financial issues.

31. While the Register Committee welcomed the action taken for better student involvement in the work of the agency, it found that the involvement of students in the governance of the agency (as per the requirement of the standard) remains insufficient, given that students are not involved in the Board of Directors.

32. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL noted that while student participation had not been utilised in the Board of Directors due to the nature of issues discussed in its meetings, this practice was now initiated in their recent meeting. The agency has updated the rules governing the functioning of the Student Board to include them in the decision-making process and approved the proposal to initiate legislative changes to include student members in the Board of Directors (see more under ESG 3.3).

33. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns on student involvement. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice. Furthermore, the announced changes in legislation are yet to be enacted and systematically implemented. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Independence; Dual role of Interim Director
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“34. In the last decision of renewal of registration, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant with the standard due to issues related to the organisational independence of the agency. Namely, the Governing Board was predominantly composed of the representatives of the regional government, including the Chairperson, while the members were appointed by the regional Minister responsible for universities and research. Furthermore, the agency was largely dependent on the regional government for approval and hiring of new staff and the annual approval of the budget.

35. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that the concerns raised during the last review remain pertinent. The majority of Board members are either appointed by the regional Minister of Education or take on their roles by virtue of holding specific positions within state administration, and the Board is chaired by the Head of the Regional Ministry for Universities.

36. Furthermore, the Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that the Acting Director of the agency during the site visit was simultaneously the head of the General Directorate responsible for universities and research, who also serves as a vice-chair of the Board.

37. The Register Committee concurred with the panel that the dual role of the Acting Director endangers the independence of the agency, especially given that the agency's organisational structure is centred around the director's position, which grants this position significant influence.

38. The Register Committee further learned from the panel analysis that the agency does not have sufficient autonomy in the recruitment process, and the budgetary constraints remain under the authority of the regional government, hindering the agency's operational flexibility and autonomy.

39. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL informed EQAR that in order to reduce the representation of regional government members on the Board of Directors, the agency approved a proposal to replace two governmental officials with two students. To that end, it has submitted a proposal to the regional government for legislative amendment. The Register Committee further asked for clarification on the timeframe when the legislative amendments would be approved. The agency clarified there was no precise timeline for amending the legislation, but they expect it to be approved by January 2026.

40. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency, but it acknowledged that the proposed legislative changes have yet to be adopted. Additionally, once adopted, it remains to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel.

41. To address the dual role of the Interim Director, the agency has taken accelerated steps to appoint a new Director and has published an open call with expedited deadlines to resolve this issue. Following a clarification request, the agency clarified that as of yet it had no formal mechanism to avoid the dual role of the director, but they have accelerated the process to select the new director by 9 June 2025.

42. Following the clarification call with ACSUCYL (of 2025-06-05), the agency informed the Committee that a new Director has been selected on 9 June 2025 (see Annex 4). The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to appoint a new Director with expedited deadlines and emphasised the importance of introducing measures to avoid dual/multiple roles for the Director of the agency in the future, which could compromise the agency’s independence.

43. In its additional representation, the agency further explained that budget control mechanisms from the regional government are mandatory, as the agency receives public funding. The agency clarified that while being accountable to the regional government, the agency has autonomy to plan and execute the budget and manage its staffing process.

44. The Register Committee welcomed the clarification, however, noted that concerns about the dependency on the regional government for the approval of the budget and staffing are still pertinent.

45. While concerns on the agency’s independence are yet to be fully resolved, considering the agency has already selected a new Director following an open call, the Register Committee concurred that ACSUCYL now partially complies with the ESG 3.3. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that ACSUCYL should inform EQAR once the new Director starts its term and the legislative changes are approved.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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