Database of Precedents
-
2.3 Implementing processes – PKA – Compliance (2024) follow-up, online procedures,
PKA
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords follow-up, online procedures, Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (04/10/2023)
RC decision Compliance “12. The Register Committee noted that PKA does not have separate follow-up mechanisms in place, but that they are part of the re-accreditation process i.e., after a conditional two year period (or longer depending on the length of the study cycle) the agency monitors the implementation of recommendations, while in case of a six year accreditation cycle, the agency monitors if the recommendations for improving the quality of education are addressed.
13. The Register Committee finds this approach completely reasonable and in line with the requirement of the standard
14. The Register Committee noted that all of PKA’s evaluation procedures (with some exceptions) are being carried out remotely. In its clarification call the review panel explained that PKA is following clear regulations regarding its remote procedures, regulations that have been updated following wide consultations with the sector. The panel was reassured with PKA’s approach in its online accreditation procedure i.e., PKA carries out observations of classes, institutions are asked to provide a video of the learning facilities and during the remote visit PKA experts also meet with different stakeholders to verify the facts in the review report.
15. The Register Committee further noted concerns from the review panel’s analysis regarding the factual accuracy-check of review reports, as this practice was not clear for those the review panel interviewed. The Register Committee however noted that the possibility for the higher education institution to comment on the assessment report is given to all higher education institutions (as confirmed by the panel) and that this is part of the procedure of the agency in the consideration of the report. The Register Committee nevertheless underlines the panel’s recommendation to further clarify the stage of factual accuracy check in PKA’s procedures.
16. Having considered the clarification of the panel and PKA’s statement to the review report, the Register Committee could not concur with the review panel’s decision of partial compliance, and found that the agency is in fact compliant with ESG 2.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AIC – Compliance (2023) inconsistencies in the implementation
AIC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords inconsistencies in the implementation Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. The Register Committee noted that there are inconsistencies in the implementation of the processes. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that the agency should clearly communicate on the valid reasons behind multiple inputs to its accreditation process and decisions, by publishing them on the website as noted also in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 15 October 2021.
14. The Register Committee further noted the concerns raised by the review panel concerning the lack of relevant criteria and information integrated in AIC’s guidebook from the Law on Higher Education and Cabinet Regulations, as well as the updating of assessment methodologies, frameworks and the guidelines for institutions, as well as experts.
15. From the additional representation by the agency, the Register Committee understood that, when considering that different procedures would be considered as a package the Methodology for organising the assessment of higher education institutions and colleges could be seen as a follow-up procedure for the one-off procedure Accreditation of higher education institutions. While the panel noted that the agency is preparing a cyclical institutional accreditation, the Committee reiterates the need for clear follow-up measures.
16. The Register Committee concluded that AIC complies with ESG 2.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) no site visits, inconsistency,
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords no site visits, inconsistency, Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “20. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that only the EQA Audit process is clearly outlined in the audit manual. For the rest of the activities, both the information provided to the panel as well as the publicly available documents, were not always consistent.
21. The Committee noted the panel’s concerns on a number of shortcomings related to the programme and provider accreditation
procedures, such as short application forms instead of self-evaluation reports for some procedures, no site-visits (see also ESG 2.2) and lack of consistent follow-up.
22. In its statement on the report (of 2024-05-20), MFHEA informed that the discrepancies between the documents and the shortcomings related to programme and provider accreditation procedures have been further addressed in the revised manuals for programme and provider accreditation procedures, which have been in use as of January 2024 for provider accreditation procedures and will be, respectively, as of January 2025, for programme accreditation procedures.
23. The Register Committee took note of the revised manuals but could not confirm whether and how these changes are implemented in practice.
24. In its additional representation, the agency reaffirmed that the concerns raised by the Committee for provider accreditation procedures have been addressed in the new Provider Accreditation Manual and the concerns for programme accreditation procedures will be addressed in the new Programme Accreditation Manual.
25. The Register Committee took in consideration the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns raised by the panel and the Register Committee. The Committee, however, could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice without a panel insight and found that some of them are yet to be implemented. Therefore, the Committee could concur with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ANVUR – Compliance (2025) Difficulties in verifying that all procedures are pre-defined and published
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Difficulties in verifying that all procedures are pre-defined and published Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “16. The Register Committee understood that although ANVUR generally implements all stages of the review (self-assessment, site visit, report, follow-up), there are certain exceptions: site visits are not mandatory in the initial (ex ante) accreditation while the follow-up of the newly accredited institutions is only conducted via the periodic assessments.
17. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that ANVUR is lacking a comprehensive and published description for each external quality assurance procedure that would serve as an overarching guide (see also ESG 2.2). Due to this, the agency cannot ensure that its external QA processes are pre-defined and published, which could further endanger the consistent implementation of these processes and of their individual phases.
18. In its additional representation, ANVUR demonstrated that since the site visit, the agency published a Manual which comprehensively compiles, describes and explains all external QA activities of the agency in detail.
19. The Register Committee could verify that now ANVUR’s procedures are pre-defined and published, and was able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that ANVUR complies with ESG 2.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – ACSUCYL – Partial compliance (2025) Site visits; Lack of structured follow-up
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2025 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Site visits; Lack of structured follow-up Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “14. In panel’s view the site visits of the activity European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes are insufficient in both duration and depth. Specifically, the interviews during the site visits were only limited to teaching staff and management, while the site visits were held online, preventing the reviewers from assessing the infrastructure of all institutions and other relevant contextual information.
15. Furthermore, the Register Committee noted that the procedure does not include a structured follow-up mechanism and is based on a permanent exchange of documents between the agency and institutions.
16. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL explained their plans to address concerns regarding the format of the site visit and to align the procedure and methodology of the new activity with the requirements set out in the agreed European framework of the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.
17. The Register Committee welcomed ACSUCYL’s plans but noted that they remain to be implemented and externally reviewed. Therefore, in light of the existing deficiencies in site visits and unstructured follow-up mechanisms for the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, the Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that ACSUCYL is partially compliant with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AQUA – Partial compliance (2025) follw-up
AQUA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2025 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords follw-up Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “9. The Register Committee learned from the panel analysis that all of the activities include a self-assessment, an external evaluation and an external evaluation report, but there is no consistent follow-up for accredited programmes.
10. In its statement to the report, the agency informed that it plans to adapt its follow-up procedures following the legal changes that prescribe mandatory follow-ups. Furthermore, AQUA informed that following the planed changes the first mandatory follow-up evaluations are expected to take place in
2028.
11. The Register Committee, took note of the steps taken and welcomed the planned actions in order to introduce mandatory and consistent follow-up for accredited programmes. It, however, found that these changes are yet to be introduced and implemented in practice by the agency. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that AQUA complies only partially with ESG 2.3.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AVAP – Compliance (2023) involvement of students, regular expert trainings
AVAP
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords involvement of students, regular expert trainings Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (21/04/2026)
RC decision Compliance “The Committee could further verify that all AVAP commissions now
include a student representative in the review for all types of procedures, including the authorisation of new programmes. The role of the student member has been redefined and that the administrative role of student in the Panel (including the different assignment for each panel member) is now removed. The Committee noted that the protocols clearly set out that students are
equal panel members in the review and reporting process. AVAP also set out a regular training of
experts and that one such session was carried out in early February.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – EQ-Arts – Compliance (2021) student involvement
EQ-Arts
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ECA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “9. The review panel's report contained no analysis of the factors that led to that departure from EQ-Arts' own policies, but confirmed that all reviews since December 2018 have included students (8 reviews in 2019 and 1 in 2020); the panel further elaborated on EQ-Arts approach to recruiting and training experts.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ECAQA – Partial compliance (2023) Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels
ECAQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “ECAQA involves a variety of stakeholders in the composition of panels, including students. The Committee learned that, in practice, the student reviewers were not always offered the training provided for the other panel members – such conditions made their involvement in some of the reviews nominal in the panel's view.The Register Committee found that despite the formal involvement, ECAQA's approach did not ensure meaningful participation of students in all review panels”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2021) Strength of the training for reviewers
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/12/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Strength of the training for reviewers Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The training for experts relies mainly on sending materials to the experts and their self-
preparation and group briefings at the beginning of the review”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACPUA – Partial compliance (2021) Involvement of students in panels
ACPUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in panels Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee learned that the absence of student
members in the panels in the two activities is due to the specificity of the
processes; the procedures focus on quantitative indicators on teaching
offering and the human, material and financial resources. The Committee, however, understood that the process goes beyond a
purely technical check of numbers, as it generally involves other experts also
making a qualitative assessment. The Committee could not agree with the
panel’s conclusion that the “student perspective could not add any value” in
those procedures and considered that the students’ views could offer an
important insight into the matters under observation in both activities”
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 (21/04/2026)
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
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – QQI – Compliance (2019) Panels composition
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Panels composition Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the composition of QQI expert panels.The Register Committee noted that some specific QQI processes do not use traditional expert panels, but are based on desk assessments or dialogues by QQI staff, followed by subsequent decisions where applicable. The Committee noted that the decision-making bodies include all perspectives that are otherwise required to be on a panel.The Committee further noted that wherever panels are deployed their composition complies with the standard. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – CTI – Compliance (2019) Involvement of students in panels.
CTI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in panels. Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s involvement of students in some of its review panels. The Register Committee noted that CTI works together with the French engineering students’ association, to ensures that CTI systematically nominates student experts in all its regular programme evaluations. The review panel also confirmed that in its CeQuInt evaluations, CTI’s panel include among its four experts also a student. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NCEQE – Compliance (2019) Panels composition
NCEQE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Panels composition Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision Compliance “The review panel learned that in cases where expert panels are employed for follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures their composition is not clearly defined. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarifications. The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019)) that its guidebook on follow-up procedures define the composition of panels for both follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures. The agency stated that it ensured that a student representative is included in the composition of the expert panel for both procedures.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s judgment that NCEQE is compliant with ESG 2.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – Unibasq – Compliance (2019) Involvement of students in review committees
Unibasq
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in review committees Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous review this standard was flagged due to the fact that the regular involvement of students on all review committees was yet to become practice.The Committee noted that steps have been taken in order to ensure regular involvement of students. Participation of students in evaluation procedures isguaranteed by the Basque Country Act 13/2012.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that Unibasq (substantially) complies with the standard”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – FIBAA – Partial compliance (2022) training of experts & pool of experts limited
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 07/02/2022 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords training of experts & pool of experts limited Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that FIBAA uses several videos and Power Point presentations to provide training for the experts, but critically remarked that there is not a face-to-face training and no clear obligation for experts to undertake such a training (or supervision on it) prior to an accreditation or certification procedure. The training is done on a voluntary basis. The review panel also underlined that the training materials for the English-speaking experts may not be as comprehensive as those received by German-speaking experts.
In its analysis the review panel also noted that the number of international experts in the pool of experts to be rather limited given FIBAA’s international profile and that there is minimal rotation and renewal among the experts.
Considering the above mentioned shortcomings, the Register Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion on (substantially) compliant but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ZEvA – Partial compliance (2022) monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2022 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “19. In addition,the review panel noted that the proportion of experts who take part in training had increased, but not sufficiently in the panel's view. The panel also considered that the process for recruitment and selection of experts was largely informal.
20. The Register Committee welcomed the newly introduced systematic monitoring of experts' training and prior experience, as explained in ZEvA's representation. The Committee agreed that ZEvA may of course rely on experts who were previously trained by other agencies operating in Germany.
21. At the same time, the Committee considered that 50% was not a very ambitious goal for the share of formally trained experts. Moreover, the Committee had some doubts whether prior experience should be considered entirely equal to a formal training.
22. While the Register Committee welcomed that the involvement of students was now ensured and that ZEvA is taking steps to enhance the formal training of experts, the Committee considered that the level of formal expert training remained weak to date. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel, but considered that ZEvA only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – THEQC – Compliance (2021) student involvement
THEQC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (09/10/2020)
Panel (25/10/2020)
RC decision Compliance “ the Register Committee noted that students were not always listed among the peer-review experts. The Register Committee has therefore asked the panel whether it was aware of such exceptions and whether it was given any explanation.
The panel explained that the involvement of students was piloted only in 2018 and that it became part of THEQC’s procedure in the academic year 2019-20 (following the set-up of the agency’s Student Commission in October 2019). The panel was assured by those that it spoke to, including the student representatives, that it was now THEQC’s policy to include students on all review panels.
The Register Committee welcomed the panel’s explanation, but noted that students were not listed among the peer-review team members in a number of evaluations carried out in 2019 (e.g. Alanya University, Atashehir University, Şırnak University, Hakari University, Ataşehir Adıgüzel Meslek Yüksek Okulu, Muş Alparslan).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – QANU – Partial compliance (2019) Student involvement in panels
QANU
Application Renewal Review Focused, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Student involvement in panels Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that QANU has, since its last review, taken steps towards the inclusion of students in the assessment of research units/PhD programmes. QANU agreed with VSNU, KNAW and KWO (the organisations who developed the Standard Evaluation Protocol for these assessments) to include students on the experts panels in the form of a pilotscheme, starting in
2019. The Register Committee found that QANU has so far finalised one assessment of a research unit/PhD programme in 2019 (report published as of 15 March 2019), but that the expert panel for that review did not include a student.While the Register Committee recognised and welcomed the clear stepstaken by QANU so far, it considered that the involvement of students on research unit/PhD assessment panels is so far at the stage of a pilot and notyet implemented in practice. The Committee was therefore unable to concur with panel’s conclusion of (substantially) compliant but found that QANU stillcomplies only partially with ESG 2.4. The Register Committee further underlined the review panel’s recommendation to ensure that students become a constituent element of the research units/PhD programme assessments panels. The Committee further added that students involvement should not be limited to the assessment of specific aspects, but that they are to be fully involved along all expert panel members.”
Full decision: see agency register entry