Database of Precedents
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – madri+d – Partial compliance (2020) not clear how agency ensures ESG compliance when using non-registered QAAs’ results
madri+d
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords not clear how agency ensures ESG compliance when using non-registered QAAs’ results Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/05/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “The panel pointed out that it was “assured by the agency that the same criteria and guidelines were applied”. The panel noted it had discussed the issue with the madri+d Accreditation Commission, which “confirmed its focus on being assured that meeting the ESG standards are a key focus of such accreditations”.
The external review report and the panel’s clarification did not refer to any evidence or further details to support this assurance. The Register Committee noted that at least two actual cases (accreditation based on ABET accreditation, https://data.deqar.eu/report/8971/ and https://data.deqar.eu/report/9129/) raised concerns insofar as the ABET reports, forming the basis for these decisions, are not published as required in ESG 2.6.
The rather generic statements, combined with these two examples, did not demonstrate sufficiently how ESG compliance is assured for reports by other, non-registered agencies. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel's conclusion, but considered that madri+d only partially complied with standard 3.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack follow-up procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “ In its previous decision of inclusion (05/06/2015) the Register Committee flagged for attention whether follow-up procedures were introduced for degree assessments between the first ex-post accreditation and consecutive periodic re-accreditations. ACSUCYL has since its last review introduced a new system of annual follow-up procedures. The panel also confirmed that it was convinced that the follow-up procedures are well and consistently implemented. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) student involvement
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/05/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The review panel noted that “when the nature of the assessment in question so requires, every effort is made to include non-academic experts [...] as well as students who are experienced in quality assessment in higher education“ (ERR, p. 39). As the Register Committee found the analysis unclear as to whether students are consistently involved in all ACSUCYL’s review panels, the Committee asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that all evaluation procedures within the scope of the ESG include one student member. The panel further added that students are regarded as equal members of peer review expert panels.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) publication of negative reports
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/05/2025)
RC decision Compliance “While ACSUCYL publishes the results of its external evaluations, the Register Committee was unclear on whether the agency also makes public the assessment reports with a negative result. The Register Committee therefore sought further clarification from the panel. In its clarification response, the panel stated that according to ACSUCYL’s handbook, the assessment reports are published once the University Council, the body responsible for taking the formal decision concerning verification and modification of curricula takes its decision. The panel added that it does not have any indication to show that negative reports of this activity are not published (in case a decision is taken).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) Lack of an independent appeals committee; Clarification of appeals’ procedure
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of an independent appeals committee; Clarification of appeals’ procedure Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its previous decision for renewal, the Register Committee flagged for attention the appeals system, as the panel recommended that ACSUCYL should revise its appeals system so that a separate committee handles appeals. The external review panel confirmed in its external evaluation report that ACSUCYL established an independent body, the Guarantees Commission, that is responsible for examining appeals or complaints in areas where the agency is competent. For procedures where the final decision belongs to the University Council or Regional Ministry (i.e. verification/modification, accreditation renewal, evaluation to create, recognize, modify or withdraw university centres), the appeal is considered by the corresponding decision making body. ACSUCYL provides input into the consideration of these cases, but it does not decide. Within ACSUCYL, the request will be sent to the Guarantees Commission, which consults the relevant Assessment Commission, before preparing an answer. If the appeal is granted, ACSUCYL will be requested to review its earlier conclusion. The Register Committee underlined that ACSUCYL’s complaints policy should communicate better that higher education institutions have the possibility to raise matters about the conduct of the process or those carrying it out (i.e. complaints in the understanding of the ESG), even in such procedures where the final decision is taken by other bodies.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACSUCYL – Partial compliance (2020) Involvement of students in agency’s decision making
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of students in agency’s decision making Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/05/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “There is a lack of student representation. Students are neither involved in the governing body nor in the bodies that review and design the agency’s procedures or take decisions on the adoption of such procedures (Governing and Advisory Board). The agency stated (in its Statement to the Review Report) that the Student Board is an Advisory Body and that students can contribute in that capacity to the governance and work of the agency. The Committee underlined the limited involvement of students in the agency’s governance and work. While the legislation does not prescribe their involvement in the agency’s Board of Directors, ACSUCYL may nevertheless improve its consultation process and also request a change of its current legal framework.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – ACSUCYL – Partial compliance (2020) Organisational independence; Appointment of the members by minister
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Organisational independence; Appointment of the members by minister Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In terms of organisational independence, the evidence presented by the panel shows that members of the Governing Board are appointed by the regional minister responsible for universities and that the Governing Board has a strong representation of its regional Government, including the Chairperson. The agency is largely dependent on the regional Government also for the approvals and hiring of new staff and the annual approval of its budget. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – BAC – Partial compliance (2020) Quality of reporting
BAC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/11/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Quality of reporting Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the quality of reports, the Committee considered the panel’s assessments that BAC’s reports “still fail to completely meet the expectations of this standard as they are not yet ‘full’ reports” (Review report p. 40)
24. The panel further pointed out that the reports provide limited qualitative insight and there was no evidence of how the Accreditation Committee was able to consider the effectiveness of a higher education institution’s internal quality assurance process. In its additional representation BAC stated that it is in the process of addressing the shortcomings of its reporting format and that it is committed to publishing the negative outcomes of its reviews While the Register Committee acknowledged agency’s progress towards more qualitative reportin,, the Committee noted that a full redraft of BAC’s reporting template is only expected to be completed in the following years”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – BAC – Partial compliance (2020) Lack of systematic approach to thematic analysis; Quality of analysis
BAC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/11/2020 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Lack of systematic approach to thematic analysis; Quality of analysis Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel found that BAC’s thematic review report provided a limited analysis, and was rather descriptive by simply summarising the content of inspection reports. Overall, the review panel felt there were still significant weaknesses in BAC’s approach to thematic analysis. In its additional representation, BAC agreed with the assessment of the panel and committed to prepare more meaningful thematic analysis that will serve to improve key areas related to the agency’s work by January 2021.While the Register Committee acknowledged the agency’s work towards improving its thematic analysis, the Committee remarked that such changes have not yet been implemented.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Part 1 insufficiently covered; Lack of clear guidance what should be evaluated by experts
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Part 1 insufficiently covered; Lack of clear guidance what should be evaluated by experts Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Reviewing each of the agency’s procedures individually the review panel showed that the independent evaluation procedure (international accreditation of educational programmes) does not sufficiently cover aspects related to ESG Part 1, concerning student- centred learning and teaching, the system for consideration of students’ appeals and complaints.In its additional representation the agency stated that new indicators have been added covering these matters and provided a full self-assessment with the mapping of its criteria to the ESG. In case of professional-public accreditations the panel was not able to gather conclusive evidence about what criteria are checked by the expert panel in these reviews. Following the analysis of AKKORK’s own standards and their correlation with ESG (according to the agency’s additional information) the Register Committee took note of the mapping and revisions, but could not conclude whether all concerns of the panel have been addressed. The Committee further underlined that the revised criteria still had to be officially approved, tested and implemented by AKKORK in its professional-public accreditation procedures. The Register Committee noted that experts do not have clear guidelines on what they are expected to evaluate and how to refer back to the agency’s own criteria. In its additional representation AKKORK provided its revised guidelines (as of 30/01/2020) describing its procedures and the assessment criteria that experts are expected to follow. The Register Committee welcomed the revised version of the guidelines, but noted that its use and implementation has yet to be reviewed by an external review panel. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria;
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords Clarity of activities; lack of stakeholder involvement in the development of methodologies and criteria; Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the design of AKKORK’s methodology of external QA procedures, the panel noted that the aims of the different activities were not clearly differentiated and that there were inconsistencies between the different language versions of the AKKORK ‘s website (English and Russian). In its additional representation the agency responded that it has made revisions to the information on its website. While the Register Committee could verify the publication of the procedures, the Committee further noted that the agency also has ‘on offer’ the activity quality assurance of educational programmes on the level of higher education and remains to demonstrate that the activity has been defined and designed to achieve the objectives set for it, as required by the standard. The panel further commented on the lack of involvement of external stakeholders, apart from the representatives from its own bodies, in the design and continuous improvement of the offered procedures. The agency commented in its additional representation that it has developed a Regulation on collaboration with partners designed to be implemented in AKKORK’s daily routine. The Register Committee welcomed the thorough work in the development of a cooperation regulation with stakeholders, but could not confirm that the Regulation is already in effect as no evidence of the stakeholders' engagement was provided for in the recent substantive changes introduced by the agency. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AKKORK – Compliance (2020) Lack follow-up procedures
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack follow-up procedures Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that AKKORK’s follow-up procedures were not consistently implemented for all off the agency’s external quality assurance activities and therefore flagged this matter for future attention. In its 2019 review report, the panel showed that AKKORK had taken steps to address its flag by including follow-up processes as part of its contracts with higher education institutions. The panel found that - while follow-ups are not part of all contracts signed with the reviewed institutions, that they are nevertheless carried out after a conditional accreditation. The panel further underlined a number of shortcomings related to AKKORK’s independent accreditation reviews at institutional level and AKKORK’s IQAS procedures. Since these procedures are no longer on offer by AKKORK, the Register Committee found that the panel’s concerns were therefore addressed”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) student involvement; Mismatch between number of experts enlisted in the reports and number of experts required according to agency’s review methodology; Unavailability of some reports
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement; Mismatch between number of experts enlisted in the reports and number of experts required according to agency’s review methodology; Unavailability of some reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s involvement of students in its previous decision of inclusion. The panel received confirmations during its multiple interviews that all of AKKORK’s peer review expert groups now included a student member.
The panel’s findings nevertheless show inconsistencies in the number of experts, listed by AKKORK in its published reports and the number of experts expected to be involved according to AKKORK’s own methodology. In particular, the review panel expressed concerns about the use of single experts for professional-public accreditations, although it was told that not all panel members were in fact listed in the prepared reports. The panel therefore concluded that while the formal procedure in the composition of review panel was met on paper, the practice differed. The Register Committee noted from AKKORK’s additional representation that its procedures are published, but noted that the above raised concerns were not addressed and remain unresolved. The Register Committee noted from the statement by the agency - in its further information on the report and additional representation - that the links have been checked and all review panel members are now listed in the published reports. Following a check of the agency’s website, the Register Committee found that a number of reports still have broken links (see the agency’s Register of programmes, under the Russian version of its website). ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) publication of procedures; Criteria are not applied consistently; Lack of consistency in decision making
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords publication of procedures; Criteria are not applied consistently; Lack of consistency in decision making Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s publication of detailed criteria for all its procedures. In its additional representation AKKORK stated that the detailed procedures and criteria for decisions have now been published. The Register Committee could verify that that the criteria are now published. The panel learned that in many cases experts relied on their personal review experience, rather than following AKKORK’s guidelines and methodology, and that AKKORK’s criteria were not applied consistently in the agency’s decision making. According to AKKORK’s revised Guidelines for Reviewers on Conducting External Evaluation of Education Quality and Quality Assurance at Programme level (adopted as of 30/01/2020), experts are expected to follow a clear methodology in their evaluation, and not their personal review experience. In its additional information to the review report, AKKORK stated that its decision-making criteria had been checked for consistency following its external review. The agency further provided a mapping of the scale for its decision making on programme accreditation ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Publication of all reports
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of all reports Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s practice of ensuring the consistent publication of all external evaluation reports. In its additional information and additional representation to the review report the agency claimed that all its review reports and decisions were now published on its website, including the reports from its professional-public accreditation activity. The Register Committee could verify that with a few exceptions all of these reports are now published by the agency on its website i.e. links included under the Russian version of its agency’s website under Register of programmes. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AKKORK – Compliance (2020) Lack of an independent appeals committee
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of an independent appeals committee Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that appeals procedures are published together with every procedure on the agency’s website, except the independent accreditation at the institutional level. To date AKKORK has only received a complaint, but no appeals. The panel’s analysis show that AKKORK’s Appeals Committee involves members of the International Accreditation Council, the same body that is involved in the accreditation decision-making process in addition to the members of its Supervisory Board. The Register Committee underlined that in such cases the impartiality of the decision making in considering appeals is not ensured. In its further information to the review report, AKKORK stated that its regulation on appeals have been updated and that its new appeals body, appointed by AKKORK’s Supervisory Board, includes members from the agency’s partner organisations. In its additional representation the agency has further provided a link to its revised regulation on appeals. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Mission implementation in daily work; Clear distinction between activities; Stakeholders’ involvement; Involvement of students
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Mission implementation in daily work; Clear distinction between activities; Stakeholders’ involvement; Involvement of students Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its analysis the panel commented that it was unclear which is the body in the agency responsible for developing a strategy, how AKKORK’s procedures are developed and what types of activities and services the agency is offering. Furthermore the panel could not find any clear evidence on how the agency’s mission is translated into the daily work of the agency. The panel also noted that AKKORK’s actual structure and relations between its governing bodies were different to the ones presented in the last version of the statutes, adopted in
2013. While stakeholders are part of AKKORK’s multiple bodies, the panel noted that their involvement could be broadened. In particular, the panel recommended that students be involved also in other bodies than the Advisory Council, where only representatives from professional organisations and higher education institutions are present. The Register Committee noted from the additional information that AKKORK has updated its mission statement and detailed its objectives and main activities on its website. The agency further stated that a new Strategic plan 2020-2024 has been approved by the Supervisory Board and that its Financial Plan also have been updated. The Register Committee could also verify that the new Strategic Plan has been adopted by the Supervisory Board at its meeting on December
2019. While the Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to address the panel’s concerns, the Committee further considers that these changes still have to be fully implemented and externally reviewed by a panel, i.e. showing evidence of a robust yearly work planning, implementation of the strategic plan. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Lack of systematic approach to thematic analysis; Absence of regular analysis;
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Lack of systematic approach to thematic analysis; Absence of regular analysis; Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that the agency has produced two analyses since its last review in 2014, both written in Russian but only published on the English version of AKKORK’s website. According to the panel, the last publication, however, does not meet the requirements of a thematic analysis. In particular, the panel noted the great qualitative difference between the publications, indicating a missing systematic approach to the publication of thematic analysis. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that the agency should establish a clear process to address all of its activities in thematic analyses. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) Lack of sufficient and fit for purpose IQA processes; Inconsistency of presentation of internal structures;
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords Lack of sufficient and fit for purpose IQA processes; Inconsistency of presentation of internal structures; Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that while the responsibilities in internal quality assurance are defined in the ‘AKKORK Internal Regulations’, the main tool of the agency for internal quality assurance of its activities are the regular staff meetings. The panel’s analysis showed a number of concerns related to the agency’s internal workings, i.e. inconsistencies in the information presented on the agency’s website, the information regarding the publication of the reports or information available on external QA activities on the Russian and English parts of the website; inconsistency in the presentation of the agency’s organizational chart in ‘AKKORK Internal Regulations’ and the structure outlined in the review report, etc.. Considering the above examples, the panel considered that not all outcomes of the agency’s work, especially not the production of documentation, are covered by the existing QA cycles. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NCPA – Compliance (2020) learners in non-traditional higher education provision
NCPA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords learners in non-traditional higher education provision Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/05/2025)
RC decision Compliance “While the panel underlined the different status of "listeners", as opposed to “students”, who enrol into these programmes, the Register Committee considered that the institutions and programmes in question were part of the higher education system and their accreditation thus within the scope of the ESG; this was also NCPA's own assessment at eligibility stage.
While the panel considered that, in light of the small number of these accreditations, a stricter judgement had “overstretched” the relevance of the matter, the Register Committee considered that this was not only a matter of numbers. The practice at the time of review meant that two types of accreditations did not fully comply with the standard.
In its additional representation, NCPA explained that it had revised the corresponding regulations and now required the presence of a “listener” (i.e. a student/learner enrolled in a further professional education programme, see above) on the expert panels. [...]
The Register Committee therefore considered that the issue has been addressed and was now able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that NCPA complies with the standard.
”
Full decision: see agency register entry