Database of Precedents

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	unclear monitoring processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel found that the agency’s monitoring processes - the follow-up and case-based monitoring procedure - were not fully clear, and in particular on how these processes would be complementing each other. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarification.The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019) that higher education institutions complete a mandatory follow-up process which takes place onceevery three years, where HEIs provide a self-evaluation on the progress made following its previous institutional evaluation. In addition, the agency may carry out a site-visit to review progress at the requested of the Authorization or Accreditation Councils following a review of the institution’s compliance with the authorisation/accreditation standards.The agency further described its case based monitoring procedure that is initiated in case a substantiated complaint is received about an institution. If the concern remains unresolved, NCEQE assembles a group of experts to investigate the complaint, which may include a site visit at the institution. Having considered the agency’s clarifications, the Register Committee found the follow-up processes well defined and reasonable. The Committeetherefore could follow the panel’s conclusion that NCEQE complies with ESG 2.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Unclear complaints processes. Inadequate composition of the Appeal Council.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the agency’s Appeal Council is composed of 11 members nominated by the Minister. While the panel was satisfied with the process the panel also commented that the short term of their mandate might not be helpful for members to gain a broad overview of the decisions made. The Register Committee further noted that the nomination of the Appeal Council’s members is problematic in terms of agency’s independence from the Ministry (see also under ESG 3.3). According to the panel’s analysis NCEQE’s complaints process are rather vague, and the panel was not convinced that higher education institutions would be aware of the opportunity to complain about a procedural concern. In its letter to EQAR (of 6 June 2019) the agency stated that it has developed a user-friendly booklet on complaints procedure and that institutions may now issue complaints online, via its website. While the Register Committee welcomed the agency’s improvement to its complaints processes, the Committee could not verify the agency’s statements, as this would require a review by an expert panel. The Register Committee further underlined its concerns regarding the composition of the agency’s Appeals’ Council. Considering the above-mentioned concerns, the Committee was unable to concur with the review panel’s judgment of (substantial) compliance, and concluded that NCEQE complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational and operational independence
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the members of NCEQE’s Authorisation and Accreditation Council are appointed by the Prime Minister upon recommendations by the Minister of Education and Science. The panel commented that the ability of the Ministry to appoint and dismiss the Councilmembers does not support organisational independence and that the agencyshould take more ownership on how council members are nominated.In its letter to EQAR (of 6 June 2019) the agency stated that NCEQE is currently working on initiating legislative changes that will allow the agency to shift the mandate in the appointment and dismissal of the NCEQE’s Director and Council members to its main Coordinating Council. The agency added that discussions are also under way to increase the role of the Coordinating Council in the selection process of the Authorization and Accreditation Council members. While the Register Committee welcomed the agency’s initiative to increase its independence from the Ministry, the Committee underlined the panel’s concerns that the new rules for the selection of Council members do not fully alleviate the concern regarding the agency’s independence as the Council itself is set up at the recommendation of the Ministry.The Register Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation that the agency should be ensured that there is a structural independence from the government and that the agency should take ownership of how council members are appointed under the new rules. While considering that the failure to fully meet the requirement of the standard concern both the organisational and operational independence, the Register Committee nevertheless noted the agency has put forward legislative changes that would increase its independence, and therefore could follow the panel conclusion that NCEQE complies partially with ESG 3.3.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	systematic approach
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its analysis the panel considered that while NCEQE produced a form of thematic analysis in its annual report, the panel commented that the activity was not yet systematically carried out. In its letter to EQAR, the agency reported that as part of its Twinning Project (starting in 2019) a methodology is developed for carrying out analytical and research activities in a more consistent and streamlined manner. The agency added it has also received support via other projects that will help the agency assess the results of implementation of the revised QA system and further improve its QA procedures. While the Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by NCEQE, it was not yet possible to conclude whether thematic analyses are produced regularly. The Committee therefore concluded that NCEQE complies only partially with ESG 3.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 not clearly reflected in some processes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The review panel concluded that “the quality assurance processes described in Part 1 of the ESG should be addressed with more detail in the assessments carried out outside Germany” (p. 30).

11. In its statement on the review report, AHPGS referred to additional explanations added to the corresponding handbooks in this regard. In the additional representation, AHPGS made these changes more visible in the text.

12. The Register Committee considered that this demonstrates in theory how ESG Part 1 will be addressed in more detail in future assessments, while the practical impact of those changes remains to be evaluated in detail within the next external review of AHPGS.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Follow-up of conditions unclear
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“16. For AHPGS' external quality assurance activities outside Germany, the review report concluded that AHPGS did not include follow-up as a mandatory step in the procedure. While the review report stated that “there are only recommendations, no conditions” in accreditation decisions outside Germany, the Register Committee noted that AHPGS had published (according to DEQAR as of 5/11/2019) at least 31 reports and decisions on programmes/institutions outside Germany that impose conditions in the decision. [...] it was not evident whether and how the fulfilment of these condition was verified, except for one case. […]

18. In its additional representation, AHPGS confirmed that also in accreditation/assessment procedures outside Germany conditions might be imposed (in cases with AHPGS final decision) or recommended (in cases where the decision is taken by a national authority). AHPGS further explained how these are followed up and noted that follow-up is now regulated formally in its contracts. AHPGS further explained that some mistakes were made when uploading the cases in question to DEQAR, which it had corrected.

19. The Register Committee could establish that the presentation of the reports in question was corrected in DEQAR. […]”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training of experts, clarity of rules for expert pool
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“21. […] the review panel noted that the criteria for the recruitment of the experts were not formalised and published.

22. The review panel discussed that the training of experts consisted only of a phone briefing. The panel recommended that AHPGS intensify and further improve the training for both new and experienced experts.

23. The Register Committee took note of AHPGS' explanation that most of its new experts had prior experience from serving as accreditation experts for other agencies in Germany; given the common system there would be no need to re-train them. While the Committee could follow this argument for experts with prior experience, it considered that there will certainly be some – even if few – experts who participate in their first accreditation with AHPGS, and the Committee considered that a more in-depth training was warranted for those.

24. The additional representation underlined that AHPGS offers a regular training programme [...] it remained unclear whether it was ensured that all panel members have participated in a formal training session […]

25. The representation further clarified that there actually is an open invitation, […]

27. Given the panel’s analysis and the issues that remain unclear after clarification and additional representation, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion but considered that AHPGS only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	transparency of criteria
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“29. The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the criteria are well-documented in AHPGS' handbooks and are interpreted in a consistent manner.

30. Despite some room for improvement identified by the panel in that the Handbooks could be more detailed, the Register Committee considered that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	not all reports published in the past
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“31. When AHPGS' registration was last renewed, the Register Committee flagged for attention whether AHPGS’ policy of publishing full reports for all reviews has been implemented consistently.

32. The review report analysed and concluded that AHPGS has consistently published full reports from all of its activities. The Register Committee therefore considered that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	brief procedure for complaints and appeals
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“33. […] there was only a brief procedure for complaints and appeals, and that the process was not fully known by the universities concerned; the Appeals Committee was not yet appointed, neither another body that deals with complaints and appeals.

34. [...] a statutory change, introducing the legal basis of the Appeals Committee, had entered into force and that the Appeals Committee had subsequently been appointed.

35. Having considered the additional information, the Register Committee concurred with the review panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Lack of clarity about existing activities; lack of regular analyses as described by the standard
Panel conclusion	Non-compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“36. [...] the publication of assessment reports, its yearly board meeting and the publication of books/journals by AHPGS staff – did not represent thematic analyses resulting from the review processes undertaken by AHPGS. […]

38. […] The statement by AHPGS did, however, not provide details as to whether and how these are clearly based on findings from AHPGS accreditation work.

39. In its additional representation, AHPGS reiterated the view that the various past publications would not have been possible without the experience from the agency’s review processes.

40. Moreover, AHPGS provided further details on its concept and work plan of publishing two thematic analyses per year. These were developed based on decisions by its governing bodies in

2019. 41. AHPGS also pointed out that it had already published its first two thematic analyses after the external review.

42. […] The Committee considered that through the combination of past publications and the two recently published thematic analyses AHPGS showed its capacity to implement that concept.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	formalisation of QA processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“44. The panel analysed that AHPGS has a system describing the internal QA processes, but given the agency's small size some processes were not formalised and relied on “informal procedures and tacit knowledge”.

45. The Register Committee noted the publication of AHPGS’ comprehensive internal quality assurance reports for the years 2009-2013 and 2013-2017 on its website.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Part 1 reflected in the agency’s external QA
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous decision of renewal of IEP’s registration, the Register Committee flagged for attention the extent to which the different elements of Part 1 of the ESG were reflected in the agency’s institutional evaluation reports. The Register Committee noted the review panel findings that show that IEP amended the guidelines for institutions as well as the guidelines for evaluation teams to directly reference 2015 ESG Part 1. The panel commended IEP’s efforts to analyse reports and to provide clear guidance on implementing the ESG standard 2.1. Having considered the mapping of ESG part I and the analysis of the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

“The Register Committee acknowledged the steps taken by IEP to enhance the participation in follow-up processes, but noted that the current follow-up model does not ensure for a consistent follow-up for all evaluated higher education institutions. The Committee considered that a progress report, which is a relatively light requirement, could possibly be a feasible follow-up for all evaluated institutions. The Committee took note of the panel's concern that making the requirement more stringent would pose a risk of turning progress reports into a purely formal requirement, but considered that such a risk had not necessarily to become true. Moreover, the same argument could be used against any obligatory element in quality assurance, or obligatory quality assurance as such.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	Clarification whether the agency addressed complaints and appeals within the same procedure
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted the agency's argument that there was no requirement for an appeals procedure in its case “as IEP evaluations do not result in decisions”. Based on the analysis of the panel, the Register Committee, however, understood and concurs with the panel that IEP's ‘substantive’ complaints are, in fact, appeals in the ESG terminology: they enable the institution to “questions the formal outcomes of the process” (in this case, the evaluation report), where it can “demonstrate that the outcome is not based on sound evidence” (see guidelines to standard 2.7), which IEP’s complaints policy translates to erroneous judgments, erroneous assumption of non-existent factors as facts, failure in exploring relevant facts, and ignoring or misjudging factual base.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.2 Official status
Keywords	agency’s formal recognition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that IEP itself does not have separate legal personality and therefore it is represented by EUA in all legal and contractual matters. The Committee acknowledged that the recognition of IEP as a quality assurance agency by public authorities is demonstrated by the numerous contracts that IEP (represented by EUA) signed with national authorities for conducting evaluations, or by the selection of IEP as an evaluating body through a public procurement procedure. [...] The Register Committee interprets the requirement of formal recognition in a broad sense and therefore concurred with the panel's conclusion that IEP complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Organisational independence: appointment of the director by the mother organisation, support in terms of pyscial infrastructure, including human and financial ressources
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“While IEP’s Steering Committee has full responsibility for the development of strategies and policies, the Register Committee noted that the Steering Committee ensure the strategic development of the IEP in the context of EUA’s development priorities. Moreover, EUA provides the overall support, including physical infrastructure and financial management through separate accounts; both entities have a shared staff and EUA appoints the Director of the IEP Secretariat. Despite the panel’s view that no benefits would come from legally separating the two entities, the Register Committee considered that IEP continues to be part of EUA and, as such, its organisational independence continues to be constrained by the close link and dependency in both legal and practical terms, even if less so than at the time of the previous review. The Committee concurred with the panel's analysis that IEP operates and undertakes its evaluations independently and that the Steering Committee has full responsibilities for the operations of IEP and its evaluation results. The Committee thus considered that the constrained organisational independence bears a residual risk of a perceived lack of independence, elements of which should be closely considered in IEP’s next renewal of inclusion.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Alignment of PKA standards not sufficiently ensured against Part 1 of the ESG
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel noted that criteria for programme evaluation are in line with Part 1 of the ESG. However, the panel expressed concerns with the opinion giving process as the alignment with some standards of the ESG (i.e. 1.2, 1.4) was much weaker or some standards (i.e. ESG 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9) were not specifically represented within PKA’s methodology for this procedure. The agency explained in its statement to the review report that PKA has requested the Minister to extend the scope of information on the proposed regulation in the opinion giving process for study programme, and that the request was accepted in September

2018. PKA further detailed in its Substantive Change Report the new criteria adopted in December 2018 for granting permission to provide a degree programme. The Register Committee took note of the detailed criteria and confirmed that the new assessment framework addresses the standards from Part 1 ofthe ESG more comprehensively. In light of the enacted changes, the Register Committee concluded that PKA now complies with standard 2.1.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that in the opinion-giving process students are not involved as members of review panels. Opinions are prepared by members of relevant Sections or PKA experts, following which the Presidium prepares a resolution that is forwarded to the Minister and highereducation institutions. The panel noted that students are to a certain extent involved as members of the Presidium of PKA. In its statement to the review report PKA acknowledged its shortcomingregarding the student involvement in the opinion giving processes and decided to set up a team of student experts to issue opinions on applications.The Register Committee welcomed PKA’s intention but found that the composition of the relevant sections and experts panels is still unchanged. The Committee further underlined that students are normally expected to beinvolved as part of the peer-review expert groups and to contribute as equal partners. As the current arrangement of PKA could not yet be reviewed by an external panel the Committee was unable to conclude whether the way students are involved meets the requirements of the standard. Register Committee therefore concurred with the review panel’s view and concluded that PKA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry