Database of Precedents
-
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 (04/07/2025)
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 (04/07/2025)
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
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AEQES – Compliance (2017) consistent follow up procedures
AEQES
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
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AEQES – Compliance (2017) student involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – AEQES – Compliance (2017) organisational and operational independence
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords organisational and operational independence Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel was satisfied that the 2014 decree on AEQES and the current organisational status and structure sufficiently demonstrate and safeguard AEQES independence. In particular, AEQES gained the ability to hire staff from its own budget, independently of the Ministry”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – AEQES – Partial compliance (2017) financial sustainability
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords financial sustainability Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Apart from the greater autonomy in staff appointments that AEQES gained, the financial resources available to the agency have not changed since
2012. The review panel noted that an increase is not foreseeable in the near future and that AEQES might face a negative financial balance in 2020.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ACQUIN – Compliance (2016) Criteria applied
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Criteria applied Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (04/07/2025)
RC decision Compliance “While clearly addressing how ACQUIN's criteria for programme accreditation and system accreditation address the elements described in ESG 1.1 – 1.10, the review report did not discuss in detail how the criteria used in ACQUIN’s other activities within the scope of the ESG correspond to ESG Part 1. Since there was no explicit mapping provided by ACQUIN or the review panel, the Register Committee sought clarification from the review panel chair. The Register Committee considered the panel's explanation (letter of 16/11/16) that the panel had reviewed in detail the criteria applied in ACQUIN's various activities, and established that ESG Part 1 was reflected in them.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Not clearly defined processes for institutional audits offered in Austria Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review report demonstrates that ACQUIN's external quality assurance processes are clearly defined in public documents, except for institutional audits offered in Austria. The Register Committee concurred with the panel's view that the process should be clearly defined and published despite the low demand. The Register Committee took note of ACQUIN's statement on the external review report, which states that audits in Austria follow the same procedure as system accreditation in Germany. The Register Committee, however, understands from the review report that this is not stipulated in ACQUIN's public documentation. When ACQUIN's registration was last renewed, EQAR had flagged for attention whether ACQUIN’s international accreditation and evaluation activities take place on a clearly defined and transparent basis, within and beyond the EHEA. The Register Committee concluded that this flag has been resolved for ACQUIN's international accreditation activity in general, but not for audits in Austria”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel considered that ACQUIN generally follows common practice in terms of preparation of experts, but remarked critically that ”ACQUIN only ensures a minimum for the preparation for the system accreditation”. The panel specifically noted that the preparation of experts in system accreditation was less intensive compared to other agencies working under the auspices of the German Accreditation Council (GAC). Consequently, the panel recommended that ACQUIN offer at least voluntary trainings or workshops to those experts. The development of ACQUIN's activities for training and preparation of experts was flagged for attention when ACQUIN's registration was last renewed. Considering the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that practice did not change materially and the issue was therefore not resolved”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2016) consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords consistency in decision making across different technical committees. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – ACQUIN – Compliance (2016) human resources planning and estimation of workload
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords human resources planning and estimation of workload Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review report described that financial losses experienced by ACQUIN have eventually been recovered by reducing activity costs. The Register Committee was able to follow the panel's concerns with regard to human resources planning and estimation of workload. Despite the fact that planning and documentation require improvement, the Register Committee did, however, not understand that the number of accreditation procedures conducted by ACQUIN significantly exceeds its capacity. Moreover, the Register Committee appreciated that an agency operating in a market-based system naturally experiences greater fluctuation than an agency in a monopoly situation”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) stakeholder involvement/students
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose Keywords stakeholder involvement/students Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions, teaching staff and professional musicians participated in the development of MusiQuE’s methodologies and processes through their representative organisations Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen (AEC), European Music Schools Union (EMU) and Pearle*-Live Performance Europe.The Review Panel found that students and representatives of the broader society were not involved in the initial development of MusiQuE's procedures. The Register Committee learned from the clarififcation provided by MusiQuE (Annex 8) that a Student Working Group has been established as part of the EU-funded “FULL SCORE” project, which is now involved in the further development of MusiQuE's methodologies through MusiQuE’s annual calls for feedback.the Register Committee noted that it will require attention whether MusiQuE’s ways of consulting students are sustainable and permanent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) consistent follow-up policy
MusiQuE
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) clarity in decision making
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords clarity in decision making Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (04/07/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The External Review Report did not address in detail the clarity and transparency of the decision-making process in those cases where the MusiQuE Board’s decision differs from the experts’ recommendation.The Register Committee considered the clarification received from the Review Panel (Annex 7), explaining that the Panel had analysed the process followed in case the MusiQuE Board requires clarification or disagrees with the recommendation of the experts, and found that process adequate, clear and transparent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MusiQuE – Partial compliance (2016) Stakeholer involvement/students
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholer involvement/students Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (04/07/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “The Review Panel noted that, while the music education sector and the professional field are involved through the nomination of Board members by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, students, alumni and the broader society were not involved in the governance of MusiQuE.According to its statement “Actions undertaken by MusiQuE as a response to the recommendations formulated by the external Review Team”, MusiQuE considered to add a student member to its Board and planned to discuss a selection process at its May 2016 Board meeting.In its clarification (Annex 8), MusiQuE noted challenges related to representation and continuity, and explained that it would invite a student observer to its Board. MusiQuE further noted that it would reconsider this decision in case a European association of music students would be created.Considering the principle of independence, the Register Committee underlined that a student Board member should not be considered a representative of their organisation, but should serve in an individual capacity. Furthermore, while acknowledging that a European association of music students would obviously be desirable for MusiQuE as a direct interlocutor at the European level, the Register Committee did not concur that the absence of such an association is an insurmountable obstacle to appointing a student Board member. Through its own database of student experts, or in contacts with generic student organisations, or national or regional music students' organisations, it should be feasible to identify a suitable student Board member.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – MusiQuE – Compliance (2016) Organisational and operational independence
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Organisational and operational independence Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (04/07/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee considered it usual and acceptable for one existing organisation, in this case AEC, to be the main initiator and (co-)founder of a new agency. The Register Committee, however, underlined that the requirement of independence should be understood to the effect that the new organisation, once it has been founded, should be able to function and develop independently, as required by the standard.The External Review Report did not specifically address the implications of the proposals for Board members (by AEC, EMU and Pearle*) being binding, whether MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity, and the guaranteed majority of AEC nominees on the MusiQuE Board.In its clarification (Annex 7), the Review Panel considered that the binding nature of nominations to the MusiQuE Board was balanced by the fact that nominees had to be listed on MusiQuE’s register of peer reviewers, which was entirely under the control of MusiQuE and its Board.The Panel had further satisfied itself that MusiQuE Board members serve in an individual capacity and that their strategic thinking and orientation was independent, dedicated to the mission and values of MusiQuE. The Panel noted that it did not detect any allegiance of Board members to the nominating organisations.The Review Panel explained that it had considered the majority of AEC nominees a strength, given that they were typically leaders of study programmes in music, had the strongest expertise in relation to quality assurance and thus MusiQuE’s work. Notwithstanding the strong expertise brought by AEC nominees to the MusiQuE Board, the Register Committee considered that their structural majority might nevertheless affect MusiQuE’s independence. The matter would thus have deserved specific attention in the External Review Report, including a more elaborate explanation how the Panel considered that MusiQuE’s independence is safeguarded despite the decisive influence of one single organisation on the membership of its governing body.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – MusiQuE – Partial compliance (2016) financial sustainability
MusiQuE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 06/06/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords financial sustainability Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The External Review Report reported that the initial costs for the setup of MusiQuE were borne by AEC, as its main founder. At the time of the review – MusiQuE did not have a sufficient amount of contracts or firm agreements with higher education institutions that would fully assure its ability to achieve self-sustainability.MusiQuE submitted the statement “Information on the financial sustainability of MusiQuE”, which included an update on the number of reviews planned and contracted for the years 2016 and 2017, as well as a financial commitment by AEC, EMU and Pearle*, for the years 2016 and 2017, applicable in case MusiQuE will not achieve self-sustainability. Beyond that, further support would be at the discretion of the organisations’ boards.The Register Committee considered that the financial commitment ensured MusiQuE’s equipment with sufficient resources for 2016 and 2017, while sustainability from 2018 onwards remained dependent on the number of reviews MusiQuE was able to carry out in practice.The Register Committee further underlined that MusiQuE is expected to make a Substantive Change Report (see §6.1 of the EQAR Procedures for Applications) in case its resource situation changes materially.”
Full decision: see agency register entry