Database of Precedents
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – QAA – Partial compliance (2023) presentation of activities within and outside the scope of the ESG
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords presentation of activities within and outside the scope of the ESG Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (03/10/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “17. The Register Committee noted the following concerns with the way QAA has separated its consultancy and related activities from its external QA activities within the scope of the ESG. In particular the Register Committee remained in doubt whether:
• readers (at least lay readers) are able to distinguish whether the reviews carried out in Albania (with the national QA body) fall within the scope of QAA's registration on EQAR, as they were not officially certified as in line with the ESG and
• how the agency ensures a clear communication and separation of the QE-TNE activity from QAA’s activities within the scope of the ESG, given that the activity can be easily misconstrued as an ESG activity (see change report of 2023-02-13).
18. The Register Committee noted that these concerns have not been addressed in the self-evaluation and external review report and therefore the Committee sought further clarifications from the panel to clarify how are the services rendered by QAA itself (internationally or domestically) separated from QAA’s regular ‘ESG activities’.
19. The panel explained (see minuted call of 2023-10-03) that in its understanding the QE-TNE activity is outside the scope of the ESG and thus outside the scope of the review. While the panel did bring this matter up during its discussion with the agency, the panel was reassured by the agency that this activity is not within the scope of the review. The panel was also unaware of the concerns raised by the Register Committee with regards to the consultancy activity carried out by the agency in Albania.
20. The Register Committee could not establish how the agency ensures a clear separation between ESG-type external quality assurance activities especially in cases where such a risk has been previously noted. The Committee therefore could not follow the panel’s judgment of compliance and found that QAA complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – QAA – Compliance (2023) the geographical coverage of thematic analysis
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords the geographical coverage of thematic analysis Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “21. The Register Committee noted that QAA carries out systematic thematic analysis within Scotland, sector-wide analysis in Wales, while UK-wide QAA has only carried out “The Quality Assurance of Alternative Providers: A Retrospective View”.
22. The Committee finds that the current activity is sufficient in its understanding and interpretation of the standard and therefore could not follow the panel’s judgment of partial compliance and concluded that QAA complies with ESG 3.4.
23. The Register Committee nevertheless underlines the panel’s recommendation that QAA should develop a clearer plan for thematic analyses for all of its external QA activities in all nations of the UK and publish them on its website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ECTE – Partial compliance (2023) Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers
ECTE
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Coverage of ESG Part 1, issues re descriptors for alternative providers Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “11. ECTE was found to be non-compliant with ESG 2.1 following its initial review (see report of 2021-08-06) and the following Register Committee decision of 2022-06-28.
12. The Register Committee’s first concern was whether all ESG Part 1 were clearly enshrined in the ECTE standards for their new integrated review, covering both institutional and programme accreditation.
13. In its focused review, the panel analysed and confirmed that the integrated standards “cover all ESG I criteria”, based also on an analysis of the five accreditation procedures that took place since January 2022; these procedures featured programmes of various levels, profiles and types of providers. The Register Committee therefore found the issue addressed.
14. The Register Committee’s second concern was whether qualifications awarded by alternative providers refer to the correct level of the QF-EHEA.
15. The Register Committee found that the review panel's analysis was very generic containing no specific insights or findings on whether the concern was addressed. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by the statement that ECTE Standards and Guidelines apply “uniformly to all ECTE programme levels (here 5-7), all types of providers (Higher Education Institutions as well as Alternative Providers) and all programme orientations (research and practice-oriented programmes)” given the fact that the learning outcomes in the Certification Framework differ between levels.
16. In its addendum to the report (submitted May 2, 2023) the panel clarified that all programmes accredited by the ECTE are classified as higher education and match the QF-EHEA descriptors, including practice-oriented programmes. The panel further explained that their formulation “of uniformly applied” meant to emphasise the use of one framework for different levels, in the way that programmes use one framework for evaluating different levels of programmes.
17. The Register Committee further found it hard to understand why the panel did not discuss the change of ECTE’s descriptors given the significant reduction in its detail and specificity. The Committee thus requested a comprehensive assessment on how ECTE’s subject-specific descriptors are considered in its new Certification Framework and on how the broad QF-EHEA descriptors themselves has impacted ECTE’s accreditation in practice.
18. The panel explained that they have not been aware of a different version of ECTE Certification Framework (earlier version published in 2019, analysed version published in September 2022)1, and thus only commented on the latest version.
19. In the view of the panel, ECTE’s documentation is consistently clear in requiring the application of ECTE standard B.2.1 (that concerns the application of QF-EHEA).
20. In its addendum to the report, the panel further provided an analysis of 16 reviews covering Short Cycle, First Cycle and Second Cycle qualifications delivered by alternative providers. The panel’s finding show that alternative providers have been specifically asked to link the learning outcomes of their programmes to the Dublin Descriptors and the associated higher education cycle.
21. The panel also checked whether ECTE evaluates the qualifications awarded by alternative providers at the correct QF-EHEA level and whether the intended learning outcomes and qualifications were in conformity with nationally agreed standards for theological education.
22. Following the consideration of the additional documentation, the Register Committee could follow the panel’s conclusion that ECTE is, in practice, examining whether qualifications at different levels match the QF-EHEA level.
23. Considering the effectiveness of how ECTE addresses these standards within its review reports (B2.1 and B5.1), the Committee found there’s a wide variation in the level of detail and specificity, that may hinder the successful application and interpretation. The Committee thus found that this concern was only partially addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ECTE – Compliance (2023) Distinction between HEIs and alternative providers/ Stakeholder involvement in governance
ECTE
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Distinction between HEIs and alternative providers/ Stakeholder involvement in governance Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “28. The Register Committee found ECTE to be only partially compliant with the standard (see decision of 2022-06-28), given the lack of a clear and transparent distinction made between officially-recognised higher education institutions (HEIs) and alternative providers (APs).
29. The panel analysed ECTE’s comprehensive measures introduced and how they have been implemented by both ECTE itself and the accredited providers.
30. The Register Committee commended ECTE for the steps taken and concurred with the panel that these address the earlier mentioned issues.
31. The Register Committee considered that the panel's concerns regarding the Accreditation Commission's (AC) dominance by staff and the lack of other stakeholder representation (e.g. students and business) are an issue related to the requirement of stakeholder participation in ESG 3.1 rather than related to ESG 3.3.
32. The Committee took note of ECTE’s immediate steps to ensure the appointment of stakeholder members (see ECTE statement of 2022-12-21). The Committee further considered the analysis provided by the panel in its addendum to the review report, on the new composition of the Accreditation Commission, that now ensures a broader stakeholder representation.
33. Given that the issues related to the involvement of stakeholders' perspectives on the AC was addressed, Register Committee was now able to concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – ECTE – Partial compliance (2023) Appointment process for accreditation body
ECTE
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Appointment process for accreditation body Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “34. The Register Committee considered ECTE partially compliant with the standards 3.3 (see decision of 2022-06-28), due to concerns with regard to ECTE’s structure, the composition and overlapping functions of the ECTE Council and the possible conflict of interest in the role of some staff members; while steps to resolve this were taken, these had not been analysed by an external review panel.
35. The Register Committee took note that the new governance structure of ECTE separates the governance role of the Council from the accreditation decision-making role of the Accreditation Commission (AC) and that members of the committee hold no other positions within ECTE. The Committee further noted that ECTE has put additional measures in place to remove all staff representation from the Accreditation Commission.
36. The Committee however maintained that the practice whereby the Accreditation Commission nominates candidates for the same body is problematic in terms of ensuring the agency’s operational independence. Even if the candidates are nominated by the Board, the Register Committee found this approach may lead to conflict of interest scenarios and can affect the agency’s operational independent and fair selection process.
37. The Register Committee also found the appointment period of the AC confusing and ill-designed as it did not provide a limited term or a clear period for the mandate of the Commission i.e. ‘members of the Accreditation Commission are appointed by the Board for a period of two-four years, re-appointments are possible.
38. Given the above mentioned issues, the Register Committee found ECTE to be partially compliant with the standard as established previously.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2023) Insufficient coverage of ESG 2.1
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Insufficient coverage of ESG 2.1 Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Looking at systemic level, the
different regulations touch upon the three particular standards of Part 1 of the ESG. However, the full coverage of all the standards of Part 1 is still not ensured through agency’s own criteria. Partial coverage of aspects through national legislation does not substitute coverage through external QA procedures and coverage of the ESG part 1 by higher education institutions’ internal QA is a prerequisite for EQA being able to assess their implementation”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2023) Lack of formal complaints procedure
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 30/06/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Partially compliant with the standard due to the lack of formal complaints’ procedure– the higher education institutions could express their dissatisfaction with the process only informally throughout the review process. The agency is yet to establish a clear
complaints procedure that is known by higher education institutions”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – THEQC – Partial compliance (2023) Infringement of the operational independence
THEQC
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Infringement of the operational independence Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Dependency of the agency on staff paid by higher education institutions”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2023) Inconsistent application of criteria
EAEVE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Inconsistent application of criteria Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (18/07/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “The current set up brings confusion not only for the higher education institutions, but also for the
agency itself. The Committee found that agency’s criteria are not always applied consistently in the reviews and this leads to different standards being covered in the reports. During the clarification call, the agency explained that the SOP 2023 will be stabile - only reviewed and amended after 3 years again. The Committee welcomed these changes but found that the agency still enables usage of different SOPs – a practice that can lead to different outcomes and inconsistencies in the conclusions of its reports. This is especially problematic considering the regulatory function of the agency’s reviews for veterinary education.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2023) Involvement of stakeholders
EAEVE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of stakeholders Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (18/07/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “The Committee was displeased to learn that EAEVE has not involved students and other stakeholders in the decision-making bodies since its registration on EQAR in
2017. While the Committee understood that involvingstudents from a narrow scientific field in the work of the agency could be a challenging task, it found that EAEVE could have found alternatives since its registration (e.g. establish stronger ties with stakeholders associations and or/create incentives for motivating other stakeholders to participate in the work of the agency, expand the involvement of students from closely related scientific fields etc.). The Committee found that the agency’s involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance and work is insufficient.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NEAA – Partial compliance (2023) training, training of experts
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords training, training of experts Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. The Register Committee noted from the panel’s analysis that the trainings of experts have been reduced to only a briefing session taking place before the site visit. The panel’s analysis further show that the last training organised by NEAA took place in 2018 (before the Covid-19 pandemic).
9. The Register Committee underlined that the agency is expected to ensure that experts have the appropriate skills and competences to carry out external reviews and that such skills and competences are acquired through regular (periodic) trainings organised by the agency.
10. In its representation, NEAA provided information that it has started intensively working on preparation and implementation of several trainings focused on specific standards and criteria. NEAA also informed that future training sessions will be included in its Action Plan.
11. The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by NEAA to address the earlier concerns, but noted that the Committee could not verify whether these training activities will ensure that all members of a panel will be systematically trained prior to undertaking an external quality assurance procedure. The Committee noted that these will remain to be determined in NEAA’s next external review.
12. The Register Committee therefore remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – NEAA – Compliance (2023) appeals and complaints, committee
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords appeals and complaints, committee Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. In its initial application for inclusion the Register Committee raised concerns regarding the lack of an internal appeals system within the agency.
14. The Register Committee noted that since the last external review of NEAA, nothing has changed in relation to the possibilities for higher education institutions to make an appeals with the agency.
15. The Register Committee further noted, that NEAA does not have its own appeals process nor a separate body in considering appeals and that the only existing appeals procedures are outside of NEAA’s remit, defined by law and under the legal competency of the Bulgarian courts.
16. The Committee considered that external quality assurance processes should always include an internal possibility to appeal within the responsible body that carried out the review itself.
17. In its representation the agency provided full documentation on its new internal provisions for complaints and appeals and for the functioning of its body the Complaints and Appeals Committee. The Committee noted that the new body is a standing committee within the agency, fully operative with permanent members and clear provisions outlined in the Statutes of the Complaints and Appeals Committee.
18. Having been able to verify that the agency provides both internal processes for complaints and appeals, the Register Committee finds that the initial concerns have been addressed. The Register Committee therefore concluded that NEAA now complies with ESG 2.7.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NEAA – Partial compliance (2023) stakeholders, stakeholders involvement, Accreditation Council
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholders, stakeholders involvement, Accreditation Council Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “19. In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that the composition of NEAA’s Accreditation Council (AC) is dominated by representatives of the academia and that there is a lack of stakeholder involvement with no student or labour market/employment representatives involved in the work and governance of NEAA.
20. The Register Committee noted that while NEAA expanded the direct participation of stakeholders in its work i.e., including representatives of students and employers in the Expert Groups and the Standing Committees, that the composition of the Accreditation Council (AC) is still limited to only representatives of the academic community.
21. Despite the improvements done by NEAA in the involvement of stakeholders’ in some of its processes and bodies, the Register Committee considered the lack of stakeholder involvement (as per the requirement of the standard) in the core governance body of NEAA as of crucial importance.
22. The Committee further emphasised the recommendation of the panel to ensure the inclusion of a representative of students and employers/industry in the AC, including a representative of students (preferably with a legal background) in NEAA’s Ethics Committee.
23. In its representation, the agency provided information on the actions taken toward the government and parliament around the need for legislative changes. The Committee took note and welcomed the positive developments towards the involvement of stakeholders in the Accreditation Council, however at the time of the Register Committee’s consideration, no changes have happened, nor a clear timeline for such changes has been provided.
24. The Register Committee acknowledge that although NEAA has taken all possible actions to improve the involvement of stakeholders within relevant normative documents, the fact remains that the level of compliance is negatively impacted by the regulatory framework within which NEAA operates.
25. The Register Committee therefore concurs with the panel that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – NEAA – Partial compliance (2023) resources, financial independance
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords resources, financial independance Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “26. The panel noted that the main challenge for NEAA remains the fact that it cannot manage its own finances in a manner that will enable NEAA to ensure the best quality of its activities. Even if the majority of the funding comes from its external quality assurance activities i.e., mostly accreditation fees, due to the strict regulations and rules defined on national level, NEAA cannot access these revenues. The Committee concurs with the panel that this could have a negative impact on the sustainability and the quality of its processes.
27. The panel underlined that despite the improvements and increase of staff members since its last review, from 8 to 19 staff members, NEAA still had a high number of vacant positions.
28. The Committee emphasised the panel’s recommendations on the need for the agency to pursue with the Ministry changes in its financial management and to continue the recruitment of new staff to ensure optimal workload and implementation of external QA processes on time.
29. In its representation, NEAA reported of a further increase in its staff (i.e., from 19 to 23 employees), with recruitment for some of these positions currently underway. The Committee noted that the agency has taken active steps addressing specific proposals to increase pay rates to the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Ministers office. Similar efforts are directed towards the Council of Rectors. Further, the agency stated that there are constant efforts made towards the responsible national authorities with a request to increase the budget of the agency.
30. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by NEAA. The Register Committee, however, noted that despite the improvements in NEAA’s permanent staff, the agency’s financial independence, due to external factors, remains constrained, and while the limitations in resources may not pose an immediate concern as to the sustainability of the agency, it may negatively impact the scope and quality of the activities undertaken by NEAA.
31. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that NEAA complies only partially with ESG 3.5.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – NEAA – Partial compliance (2023) internal, internal QA system,
NEAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords internal, internal QA system, Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “32. The panel noted that NEAA started developing its internal quality assurance system introducing, some new mechanisms and procedures. However, the panel underlined that the elements of the procedures are fragmented and not fully structured, integrated and connected in a systematic way. The panel also noted the lack of transparency of the mechanisms and their results.
33. Despite NEAA’s efforts to develop its own internal quality assurance system, the Register Committee found that the process is still in a developmental phase. The Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation that all the elements of the internal QA system needs to be better connected, regularly implemented with the involvement of all internal and external stakeholders.
34. In its representation, NEAA informed that in 2023, the agency undertook an internal audit to identify the weaknesses and bottlenecks in its own internal processes and review procedures. The agency also provided details of the internal audit process and the series of recommendations that were outlined to correct the issues. NEAA further stated that necessary measures are being implemented to improve the functioning of the agency.
35. While the Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by NEAA, the Committee underlined that the issues outlined before remain to be considered and reviewed by an external review panel to determine the improvement in the functioning of NEAA’s internal QA system.
36. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that NEAA only partially complies with ESG 3.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – KAZSEE – Partial compliance (2023) Publication of reports
KAZSEE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “At the time of the site visit the
agency’s website was under development, and the access to all reports was
not possible. The Committee noted that the website was still not upgraded
and fully functional at the time of taking the decision - almost one year after
the panel’s visit. This circumstance prevented the Committee from verifying
whether all the reports are publicly available. The Committee
concurred with panel’s conclusion of partial compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – KAZSEE – Partial compliance (2023) Operational independence; Independence of formal outcomes
KAZSEE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Operational independence; Independence of formal outcomes Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Committee learned that both the president and the vice president
of KAZSEE have voting rights in the two bodies in which they are members
of, i.e. the Accreditation Council and the Supervisory Board. In panel’s view
the “mixture of roles [of the President and the vice President] could make
the [decision making] system vulnerable”. The Committee could follow panel’s reasoning that the current
arrangements could pose threat for the operational independence and the
independence of formal outcomes.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – KAZSEE – Partial compliance (2023) Performing thematic analysis
KAZSEE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Performing thematic analysis Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The agency does reports covering different
topics – however they are mostly related to projects, rather than findings
from the external quality assurance activities. The panel further highlighted
that the agency is aware of the importance of collecting and analysing data
from the review processes for its own development purposes, but also for
contributing to the system level policies. The Committee acknowledged that while the thematic analyses are
not taking place in a systemic and formal manner, KAZSEE is a relatively
new agency that demonstrates interest to further formalise the processes
for producing thematic analyses.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACCUEE – Partial compliance (2023) ex-post accreditation, Technical Committee, experts reports
ACCUEE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords ex-post accreditation, Technical Committee, experts reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (13/02/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “10. The Register Committee noted that the responsibility for the preparation of the external review reports for the monitoring and ex-post accreditation of study programmes is with the Technical Committees.
11. The Register Committee noted that the experts’ site-visit reports were not part of the final external review report and they were only available for the analysis of the Technical Committees. The Register Committee could not understand why the experts reports (in the case of the monitoring and ex-post accreditation of study programmes) is not published as well and therefore asked the panel for further clarification.
12. The panel explained (see minuted clarification 2023-02-13) that the practice of having a committee develop these reports is common among all Spanish QA agencies and it ensures the consistency of reports.
13. The Register Committee further asked the panel to clarify the forms of factual and non-factual allegations made by institutions on the reports of the Technical Committees. The panel explained (see minuted clarification) that the allegations have always been focused on the technical part of the reports (factual comments). However, the panel added that the agency should clearly differentiate within its procedure that the allegations deal only with factual errors and do not address diverging views and opinions on the statements and assessments taken in the report.
14. While the Register Committee welcomed the use of a Technical Committee to ensure consistency, the Register Committee could not follow the reasoning of not including or separately publishing such reports (i.e. as an annex). The Register Committee underlined that it can be of interest for the public to know the basis on which the final reports are being developed. In particular, such information is important to ensure the transparency in the Technical Committee’s decision making.
15. The Register Committee therefore could not follow the panel’s conclusion on the compliance with the standard, but concluded that ACCUEE complies only partially with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ACCUEE – Partial compliance (2023) allegations, appeals, complaints
ACCUEE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords allegations, appeals, complaints Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “16. The Register Committee noted that the agency defines three different processes for allegations, appeals and complaints.
17. The allegations (considered as a form of feedback opportunity for the institutions) are dealt with by the Technical Committees, who is also responsible for drafting the reports (see also under ESG 2.6).
18. The appeals and complaints procedures are defined by law and are under the legal competency of the Canary government.
19. The Committee noted, that ACCUEE’s appeals and complaints policies are limited as the agency does not have its own appeals and complaints processes or a separate body in considering complaints or appeals.
20. The Committee considered that external quality assurance processes should always include an internal possibility to appeal and complain with the responsible body that carried out the review itself.
21. The Register Committee noted that ACCUEE intends to appoint an independent and permanent body, Guarantee Commission that will consider all appeals and complaints related to all procedures that are in the scope of the ESG.
22. The Register Committee welcomed ACCUE’s intention to set up a separate body to handle appeals and complaints, but the Committee underlined that such changes are yet to be implemented and to be reviewed. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that ACCUEE only partially complies with ESG 2.7.”
Full decision: see agency register entry