Database of Precedents
-
2.6 Reporting – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) Publication of reports of initial accreditation
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports of initial accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its decision to admit ASHE to the Register, the Register Committee had flagged the accessibility and readability of ASHE reports. The Committee noted that ASHE took several steps to enhance the accessibility and readability of its report during the past five years, including the publication of summary reports. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed. The review panel noted that reports of initial accreditation procedures are not published. The review panel considered that these reports “serve as a base for the ministerial decision to admit the HEI or programme to be established and that therefore these reports do not carry information directly addressed to the general public” (report p. 40) and that in case of a negative decision “the HEI or programme concerned will not be launched and so there is no tangible public interest in reading these reports” (idem). The Register Committee, however, considered that the standard clearly requires the publication of all external quality assurance reports. Even if the reports' addressee is the ministry, there is a clear public interest in the basis of ministerial decisions being public and transparent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal.
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of appeals procedure for initial accreditation and inadequate body to address the appeal. Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel considered that the body deciding on appeals should not be identical to the body that made the decision being appealed, but identified an overlap in the case of ASHE. It further noted that there is no appeals procedure (internal to ASHE) for initial accreditation, but only a possibility to appeal decisions in a court.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that the decision-making procedure of the Accreditation Council does not give any special consideration to the effectiveness of internal quality assurance process e.g. by linking the varying progress made by institutions in the development of IQA to the three possible final outcomes. While the panel found that IQAA’s approach reflects the early stages of its development, the panel recommended a stronger focus on the effectiveness of internal quality assurance in IQAA’s accreditation methodology as well as a refining of accreditation standards on student-centred learning (ESG 1.3) so that they give more consideration to how the concept is translated into pedagogical approaches and assessment practices; and more consideration to the primary responsibility of institutions for quality in its interpretation (ESG 1.9). The RC noticed shortcomings in addressing the effectiveness of internal QA processes in its institutional and specialised accreditation procedure and the need for a refining of its standards,”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Considering the fitness for purpose of the agency’s metholodogy, the panel identified a number of shortcomings i.e. lack of a regular review of the agency’s methodology, blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions (such as the preliminary review processes and the post-accreditation monitoring process).
In the analysis the panel further underlined the need to shift the responsibility for quality from the agency towards the institution and that the current procedures might be impeding such development. While the Register Committee considered the agency’s statement to the review report, noting the phasing out of preliminary reviews and the clarification regarding post-accreditation reviews, the Committee concluded that the achieved fitness for purpose of IQA’s methodology needs to be externally reviewed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) difference in reports regarding recommendations and level of compliance/Inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation,
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords difference in reports regarding recommendations and level of compliance/Inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation, Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted some inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation, i.e. the IQAA Accreditation Council can only modify the points awarded for decisions in case of programme accreditation but not for institutional accreditation. The panel further noted that it is not always clear how the number and weight of recommendations is linked to the compliance levels of each standard i.e. some reports may include recommendations or critical comments, while other reports do not although in both cases the standard is considered ‘fully compliant’. The panel considered this was a result of the fact that the guidelines for experts are not sufficiently precise. The panel recommended a revision of the agency’s decision-making algorithm, in particular a clarification of the minimum requirements to be fulfilled by higher education institutions and the acceptable shortcomings for each of the four levels of compliance within IQAA’s accreditation standards.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – IQAA – Partial compliance (2017) Publication of negative reports
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that IQAA’s regulations regarding the publication of results from accreditation reviews were not entirely clear and consistent. Whereas some provisions stated that all reports and decisions would be published, others stated that only reviews leading to a positive decision were being published. The panel found that in case of a negative decision on accreditation, neither reports nor outcomes are published. In addition, the panel noted that discrepancies exist between the information available on the Russian and English languages websites. In its statement on the review report, the agency announced that it had recently published all expert review reports and decisions of the Accreditation Council and that it had updated its regulations to explicitly outline that all review reports are published irrespective of their outcomes. The Register Committee could, however, not verify the statement of the agency that also negative decisions would be published, using the link provided.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – IQAA – Compliance (2017) separation of consultancy and preliminary reviews
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords separation of consultancy and preliminary reviews Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The panel noted (p. 30, under ESG 2.2) that IQAA’s efforts to support institutions throughout the assessment process have led to the blurring of boundaries between the agency’s different functions i.e. consultancy-type support offered to individual institutions as part of its preliminary reviews and its regular external QA activities. In its statement to the review report the agency explained that IQAA’s Accreditation Council has phased out preliminary reviews in December
2016. Based on the understanding that the agency has ceased these activities, the Register Committee concluded that there is no further risk of conflicts of interest. The Register Committee, however, underlined that agency is expected to make a substantive change report should IQAA resume the same or similar consultancy-type activities offered to higher education institutions.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – IQAA – Compliance (2017) studies based on expert panel review reports are published
IQAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords studies based on expert panel review reports are published Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “While the panel welcomed the consistent publication of studies by IQAA addressing the Kazakh higher education and QA systems and the impact of IQAA’s reviews on institutional enhancement the panel however noted that IQAA does not analyse in its publication the results from its institutional and programme reviews. In its statement on the External Review Report, the agency explained that it did not interpret standard 3.4 to explicitly require analyses based on external review reports, but it nevertheless agreed on the importance of these findings and has published a number of studies based on expert panel review reports on institutional accreditation. Considering the evidence provided the Register Committee found that IQAA has addressed its compliance with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AI – Compliance (2016) Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing the effectiveness of internal QA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion Register Committee noted that it should receive attention how AI takes into account the effectiveness of institutional quality assurance arrangements in relation to study programmes and has therefore flagged this matter.The Register Committee noted that since its last review, AI has shifted from performing programme reviews to institutional accreditations and that the accreditation of programmes is expected to fade out by
2019. Since a positive outcome of institutional accreditation means that the institution is mature enough to take the responsibility for the quality assurance of the programmes they offer, the Register Committee concluded that through institutional accreditation AI now takes into account the effectiveness of internal quality assurance and has therefore addressed the flag.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AI – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “While the panel finds that in general AI’s methodologies are designed to ensure quality and relevance for all higher education institutions, it underlined that the agency does not give recommendations following a positive programme accreditation or a negative decision for institutional accreditation.The panel further noted that “methods are defined and designed to ensure that the aims and objectives for external quality assurance are achieved methodologies are fit for purpose” and that “AI put more emphasis on the developmental dimension of external quality assurance.” Considering the analysis of the panel the Register Committee formed the view that the developmental dimension of external quality assurance has been sufficiently well integrated in AI’s external quality assurance procedures. The panel stated that AI doesn’t have a proactive role in the involvement of stakeholders in the design of new procedures. As stakeholder involvement is nevertheless ensured in the consultations on new procedures initiated by the Ministry and Accreditation Council, the Register Committee concluded that this requirement of the standard is met.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AI – Compliance (2016) Involvement of external experts
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of external experts Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AI – Compliance (2016) readibility and usefulness of reports
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords readibility and usefulness of reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion the Register Committee flagged the readability and usefulness of accreditation reports for students and general audiences.The review panel noted that the agency still needs to improve the readability of reports and while the structure and format of AI reports are in general clear and concise they mostly serve the purpose of the accreditation decision.While the agency is compliant in terms of accessibility and publication of reports, the Register Committee noted that the readability of reports is limited to a specialised audience. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AI – Partial compliance (2016) Stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion the effectiveness of the Accreditation Institution’s activities to engage with its stakeholders.The Committee noted that the involvement of stakeholders is generally ensured trough consultations by the Ministry and the Accreditation Council (Review Report, p. 29), while AI’s only formalised form of stakeholder involvement is related to the thematic analysis of reports. The Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that AI should further develop stakeholder involvement in its governance and work in order to meet the agency’s objectives of enhancement and further development of quality assurance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – AI – Compliance (2016) Operational independence/limited ability in defining its own rules of procedure and criteria
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Operational independence/limited ability in defining its own rules of procedure and criteria Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion of 18/11/2010 the Register Committee noted that “the Ministry defines in detail the criteria applied by the Accreditation Institution” and that the “independence-related impact of this situation in the long term should receive particular attention”. The panel commented that even though the minister lays down the rules of procedure for both institutional and programme accreditation, the level of detail and number of criteria has improved allowing AI to further elaborate on its own criteria.The panel stated that the Executive Director of AI is appointed by the minister following the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The panel’s view is that this is an appropriate solution since AI does not have any governing board or other bodies to fulfil this function.The outcomes of AI’s quality assurance processes are the responsibility of the Accreditation Council. The panel noted that the members of the Accreditation Council are appointed by the minister of Higher Education on the basis of recommendations from relevant organisation. The minister also appoints the Executive Director of AI on the recommendation of the Accreditation Council. The review panel considered that similarly to AI, the Accreditation Council is not subject to the power of instruction from the Minister of Higher Education concerning accreditation and therefore the minister cannot affect or reverse any of the Councils accreditation decisions. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – AI – Compliance (2016) human resources capacities
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords human resources capacities Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion (ESG 2005: standard ESG 3.4) AI’s capacity to sustain and develop the capacities and qualifications of its professional staff. The panel’s findings showed that human resources have steadily increased and that AI offers seminars and courses for staff members.The panel also commended the yearly individual meetings with staff whereby considerations are given to workload and possible needs for competence development.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Standards for accreditation
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Standards for accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (03/05/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee was unclear on whether IAAR used specific sets of standards for the above-mentioned accreditations and, if so, whether the panel had addressed their compliance with Part 1 of the ESG. The Committee therefore requested the panel to clarify this matter (letter of 25/04/2017). In its clarification letter (of 06/05/2017) the panel stated that IAAR had developed detailed sets of standards that follow a similar framework as in the case of IAAR’s regular accreditation procedure. The panel added that while the review did not permit a full enquiry into the variations of the field specific standards the panel was satisfied that the procedure was similarly implemented across all sets of standards and that they were published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) involvement of stakeholders (students)
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords involvement of stakeholders (students) Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel’s analysis showed that while IAAR involved a range of stakeholders in the ongoing review of the agency’s methodology, the panel found no evidence that student representative bodies had been consulted. The panel added that student involvement in IAAR’s relevant consultative and decision-making bodies was minimal.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – IAAR – Partial compliance (2017) Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Conflict of interest: same members in the Appeals Commission and Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that IAAR established a commission to handle appeals and complaints in late 2015 that consists of a number of members representing national representatives of employer bodies. The review panel formed the view that the membership of the Commission was not well aligned with its role and purpose, having the focus almost exclusively on employer representatives. The panel further added the potential conflict of interest considering the overlapping membership of the Appeals Commission that of the Accreditation Council. The panel recommended the broadening of the Commission’s membership and a separation from the members of the Accreditation Council”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – IAAR – Compliance (2017) Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest
IAAR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of consultancy and accreditation procedures to avoid conflict of interest Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (03/05/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The panel noted that IAAR carries out consultancy activities to assist institutions in the development of their internal quality assurance and to prepare them for accreditation (review report p. 8). While the panel stated that such activities were separated from the external quality assurance activities of IAAR (review report p. 10), no further analysis was provided on how that separation is ensured. The Committee therefore asked the panel to further elaborate on this issue. In its response (letter of 06/05/2017) the panel explained that consultancy activities take the form of seminar-trainings initiated at the request of the institution. According to the agency’s regulation on the External Expert Commission, the staff and external experts involved in the training cannot be part of the accreditation process at the same institution.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – AEQES – Compliance (2017) stakeholder involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report demonstrated that, based on the national legislation as the main framework, AEQES has developed its own methodological framework, procedures and criteria in consultation with the key stakeholders”
Full decision: see agency register entry