Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in review panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee already noted in its change report decision (of 2022-10-28) that QAA has changed its policy since the last review and addressed the concerns raised as regards to student involvement in review panels.

12. The Committee was reassured by the panel’s analysis that showed that QAA ensures there is always a student included in its panels for all of the activities under review, except for follow-up visits. The Register Committee understands that follow-up visits are part of an external QA activity, and not a separate activity on its own and therefore finds this approach acceptable.

13. The Register Committee therefore finds the earlier issues addressed and concur with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should extend its pool of international reviewers in light of its own increasing rate of international reviews.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student in panel
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. The Register Committee stressed in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 2021-10-22 that the group of experts in the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure, does not include a student. While the Committee understands that this procedure was created as a temporary and short-term solution in order to close possible gaps in the accreditation periods of programmes (until the next re-accreditation of the corresponding study field), the Committee could not follow the agency’s decision of not involving students, as per the requirement of the standard 2.4.

18. The Register Committee further noted from the review panel’s report that the agency has not resolved this issue and sustained its position that two experts should be sufficient in this procedure.

19. Considering AIC’s statement to the report that, the Register Committee understood that AIC is applying the national framework. The Committee however underlined that it is AIC’s responsibility to ensure ESG compliance with all standards and that it has taken measures to ensure the involvement of students in all procedures.

20. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation to include student-members in all procedures involving external experts, in particular in the procedures for Inclusion of a licensed study programme in the accreditation form of study field.

21. In its additional representation, AIC explained that the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure is not a stand-alone procedure, but a temporary measure while the new quality assurance system from 2025 will include students in all procedures. The Register Committee however noted that students are at the time not included in this procedure, as the new system is not implemented yet. The Register Committee underlined the expectation of the standard, that

students should be involved in all QA processes.

22. The Register Committee concurs with the panel that AIC complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“26. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that at the time of the review, some provider and programme accreditation procedures did not involve experts and that these procedures were conducted by MFHEA’s staff. The Committee understood that the only reviews that involved panels were the accreditation procedures for provider seeking university status and EQA Audit (see also ESG 2.3).

27. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that the revised manuals, referenced earlier in this decision, require that now every procedure is conducted by an external review panel of a minimum of three experts out of whom one is a student.

28. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm whether these changes have been implemented in practice.

29. In its additional representation, MFHEA referred to the new manuals for provider and programme accreditation where the involvement of students in every external review panel will be guaranteed. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that despite that, the new Programme Accreditation Manual would be in place as of January 2025, the agency already includes students in the review panels for programme accreditation procedures.

30. From the additional representation, the Committee has learned that at the given time only a very small portion of programme accreditation reports are available on MFHEA’s website and further publication of reports is planned in January 2025 (see ESG 2.6). From the limited number of reports available online, the Committee could see that the agency started including a student reviewer in the expert panel.

31. The Register Committee welcomed the changes made by the agency in order to involve students in all external review procedures and encouraged MFHEA to continue this practice. The Committee, however, found that it remains to be evaluated by an external panel whether the planned changes have been consistently implemented and students are included in all programme review panels once the new programme accreditation manual is adopted. Therefore, the Committee 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	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

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	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2025
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. In its decision of 2023-12-12, the Register Committee found AIC to be partially compliant with the standard, due to lack of involvement of students in the review panels in its procedure Inclusion of licensed study programme on the accreditation of study fields. The Register Committee understood from the review report that as AIC moves towards a system focused on cyclical institutional reviews, it has discontinued this activity and no future reviews of this kind will be implemented.

12. The Register Committee considered that since the agency has discontinued the activity, the conditions leading to partial compliance have ceased to exist. The Register Committee could therefore follow the panel’s judgement and found the agency to be compliant with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/06/2025
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	remunerating of experts,
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee noted that all external quality assurance activity are carried out by an expert panel, including students. The Committee, however, learned that while students are currently involved in every panel their involvement is not made explicit in any internal documentation.

12. The Committee further learned that the experts perform their duties on voluntary basis without receiving any financial support for their work.

13. While the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s judgement that the agency continues to comply with the standard, it underlined the panel’s recommendation that student involvement in expert panels should be ensured by mandating it in the agency’s rules and regulations. The Committee further underlined the panels recommendation that the agency should explore ways of remunerating experts for their work.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last review the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's policies were not always followed in practice, i.e. use of on-site visits in evaluations and use of evaluation results in programme accreditations. In its current review, the panel stated that it did not find any evidence of deviations from the prescribed procedures and that policies are implemented consistently. The panel, however, remarked that ASIIN could provide better guidance about the site visit schedule and ensure more transparency in the processing of requests deemed potentially problematic from countries of higher education institutions outside of the European Higher Education Area (see also under ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“absence of any standard framework or guidance as to the use of site visits or interviews in thematic evaluations, makes it unclear whether the agency has sufficient approaches to validate the evidences provided by HEIsin this activity. In addition, the panel's report touched only briefly on the suitability of online interviews instead of regular site visits in the activities program evaluation and appraisal of applications for degree-awarding powers.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Formal follow-up processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel considered there was a lack of a formal follow-up by SQAA to "touch base with HEIs” before the next cyclical re-evaluation/re-accreditation in case of unconditionally positive decisions. The Register Committee further took note of SQAA's response to the review report, setting out its approach to monitoring higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems during the re-accreditation cycles.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent implementation of a follow-up procedure & site visits
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The review panel’s analysis showed that the agency has made improvements, having also introduced follow-up procedure for its audits. The Register Committee found that while the panel was satisfied with this improvement, the approach to follow-up should allow higher education institutions to also report progress in the implementation of recommendations before all external review procedures. The Register Committee further noted that site-visits are not consistently carried out by NEAQA for programme accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/09/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	EQA processes that include: self-assessment, site visit,
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In ANECA’s last review, the Register Committee flagged for attention the implementation of the key elements of the standard i.e. self-evaluation, site visit in the development and implementation of the ACCREDITA programme. The panel’s evidence and analysis show that since its last review ANECA has revised the ACREDITA procedure, which now includes: a self-evaluation stage, a revision by an assessment committee during a site-visit, and a report providing guidance for the actions taken by the institution.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Consistency and transparency in decision making
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“ Having evaluated the procedures for decision making by Quality Assessment Council for Higher Education (HEQAC), the panel concluded that the standard for consistency and transparency in decision-making has received considerable attention and improvement since the last review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of consistent follow-up procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of initial inclusion (18/05/2011) the Register Committee flagged the introduction of site visits as well as follow-up procedures undertaken by HCERES. The panel noted that since its last review HCERES did not ensure a consistent follow-up in its EQA activities due to a prolonged process of succeeding evaluations (that included the introduction of site evaluations). The agency replaced the follow-up with a progress report that higher education institutions would prepare as part of their self-evaluation so as to facilitate and speed up the process. Moreover, the panel noted that evaluations of programmes are carried out without site visits.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	28/06/2022
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	follow-up with limited value added, no students interviewed in site visits
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (14/06/2022)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“18. The panel noted that HCERES programme evaluation panels do not meet with students during review visits. The panel discussed the new follow-up process introduced for institutional evaluation only, but noted that some questions remained regarding the added value given that there is no analysis or feedback in direct response to follow-up reports.

19. The panel considered that HCERES made improvements since the last review, as site visits were not carried out for programme evaluations at all previously and given there was no follow-up process previously.

20. While the Register Committee acknowledged that significant progress has been made, it did not consider that HCERES complies with the standard yet in light of the limited added value of the follow-up process and the fact that students are not interviewed during site visits. The Committee therefore did not concur with the panel, but concluded that HCERES remains partially compliant with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow up procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that AEQES has acted on the recommendations made in the 2011 review and adopted reinforced follow-up procedures in 2015.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by NASM
Decision of	06/06/2016
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	consistent follow-up policy
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Review Panel noted that the follow-up procedure is only compulsory for MusiQuE’s accreditation reviews at present.While the Register Committee acknowledged that it is more difficult to impose a follow-up procedure in a voluntary review than an obligatory one, the Committee underlined that MusiQuE is free to design the contractual conditions and requirements for institutions.The Register Committee thus noted the Review Panel’s recommendation that MusiQuE should implement a consistent follow-up policy for all different types of review.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Follow-up
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee, noted in the analysis by the panel that evalag’s review procedures include a self-assessment report and an external assessment followed by expert’s report, but no follow-up activities, unless related to conditions/requirements established by evalag when taking the corresponding decision.

12. Given the concerns on the lack of consistent follow-up in all of evalag's procedures the Register Committee concurred with the panel that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementing processes
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. In the last review, the agency was found to be partially compliant with the standard as the follow-up model did not ensure a consistent follow-up for all evaluated higher education institutions.

10. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis IEP’s efforts in addressing the shortcomings with the standards. Furthermore, the Committee noted that IEP took further measures to increase the rate of submission of follow-up reports by evaluated higher education institutions. .

11. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry