Database of Precedents
-
2.6 Reporting – SAAHE – Compliance (2023) publication of reports
SAAHE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (28/11/2023)
RC decision Compliance “9. The panel reported that it could not identify any clear links where the decisions and the evaluation reports of the review panels are being published on the agency’s website.
10. The Register Committee sought further clarification from the agency (see minuted clarification) in order to understand the agency’s practice regarding the publication of reports and decision.
11. The agency explained (and presented) how the reports are being published on its website i.e. via links within a document uploaded on its website each time a new report is finalised. SAAHE further explained that the agency also publishes, the applications and self-assessment reports of higher education institutions undergoing review procedures. The agency is aware that the current way of publishing reports and decision is not ideal but explained that it was hesitant in making any changes during its review process.
12. The Register Committee sought further clarification on the lack of published reports in 2022 and
2023.
13. The agency explained that following a change in legislation, in 2021, all higher education institutions are required to undergo institutional accreditation and had to apply for such a review by the end of
2022. The agency clarified that while all 33 higher education institutions are have applied for an institutional accreditation, at the moment no procedure has yet been finalised. A pending decision by SAAHE’s Executive Board is expected in February 2024.(see minuted clarification)
14. Having considered the report and the clarification by the agency, the Committee concluded that despite the difficulty in accessing the links of published reports, that SAAHE has been publishing full reports and decisions on its website. The Register Committee underlined the recommendation by the panel to ensure the publishing of reports and decisions in a more accessible and informative way than the current practice.
15. The Register Committee noted that the agency is expected to inform the Register once it has concluded its first institutional accreditation procedure.
16. Having considered the review report and the clarification by the agency, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s judgement of partial compliance, and concluded that SAAHE complies with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – Unibasq – Partial compliance (2024) Publication of reports with negative outcomes, publication of expert panel reports
Unibasq
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports with negative outcomes, publication of expert panel reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 11-05- 2019), Unibasq was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it did not publish reports of its ex-ante accreditation resulting with a negative outcome. From the report, the Register Committee learned that the agency now publishes these reports too.
9. The Register Committee further learned that the preliminary and final review reports shared with the higher education institutions and the public do not include the expert panel reports; these reports are only available to the Unibasq’s Committees.
10. The Register Committee found that the agency addressed the concerns raised in its earlier decision regarding the publication of negative reports from its ex ante accreditation procedure. It, however, shared the panel’s concerns that the agency does not fully comply with this standard because of the lack of transparency regarding the expert panel reports.
11. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency remains partially compliant with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) publication of reports
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “39. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel, that the agency did not publish all of its reports from its programme and provider
accreditation procedures.
40. In its statement on the report, the agency informed that with the publication of the new manuals, as of January 2024 and January 2025 respectively, all accreditation reports and decisions will be published on its website. The Register Committee, however, could not find any recently
published reports when performing an additional check on the MFHEA’s website.
41. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that as of January 2024, all accreditation decisions are to be published on the MFHEA website
together with the expert panel reports. MFHEA further explained that “the reason no Provider Accreditation Reports have been found on MFHEA
website is that since this is a recent development, to date no provider accreditation have been finalised and therefore there were no provider
accreditation reports to publish” and that “with regards to programme accreditations there is a small number of reports which are ready. It is expected that actual publication will happen in January 2025…”.
42. The Register Committee took note and welcomed the planned actions by MFHEA to ensure that all reports and decisions are publicly available. The Committee found that, however, the presented actions are yet to be implemented in practice and once implemented, remain to be reviewed by
an external review panel.
43. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – CTI – Compliance (2024) Publication of full reports
CTI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of full reports Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “10. In the previous decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found CTI to be partially compliant with the standard as it only published summary of evaluation reports which lacked important details from the full reports.
11. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that a new template, which includes the full report, was introduced. Furthermore the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel, since 2019, CTI started publishing in full all of its reports.
12. Having addressed the earlier concern regarding publication of full reports, the Register Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined the panel’s recommendations that the agency ensures that the reports are more analytical, their clarity and soundness are improved as well as their visibility on the agency's website.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) publication of reports, negative
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords publication of reports, negative Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. In its previous decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of publication of reports with negative results of its ex-ante verification of study programmes.
8. The Register Committee learned that ACCUA now publishes reports with negative and positive results of all evaluations processes except for reviews of universities for recognition on its website. From the report, the Committee learned that these reviews only occur by a request from the regional ministry and are sporadic. The Committee further understood that the agency is not authorised to publish the reports as this is in the remit of the regional parliament.
9. Given the improvements made in publication of the negative reports, the Register Committee could concur with the panel that the agency now complies with the standard. The Register Committee, nevertheless, highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should raise the issue with the publication of the results of the reviews of universities for recognition with the regional authorities to ensure that these reports are made available to the public.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – SKVC – Partial compliance (2022) lack of consistency, unclear understanding of multi-level compliance scale
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords lack of consistency, unclear understanding of multi-level compliance scale Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “8.The panel considered that SKVC's criteria are lacking clarity, especially with regard to the exact understanding of the 5-level scale used by SKVC. The panel recommended developing guidelines for interpretation of each level to enhance consistency of their use.
9.The Committee understood that the current situation as described and analysed by the panel might lead to a lack of consistency.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) transparency of criteria
AHPGS
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – SQAA – Compliance (2019) clarity of the criteria for assessment
SQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/04/2019 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords clarity of the criteria for assessment Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision Compliance “Following the review panel's analysis that SQAA's criteria for assessment were not always clear and left room for interpretation, the Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel on its conclusion as to the present standard. The Register Committee understood that SQAA's criteria were by and large perceived as clear, and that these remarks related to some – but not all or the majority of – criteria. It became clear that the panel's findings were more nuanced than the language might have suggested.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EAEVE – Partial compliance (2018) consistency in decision making
EAEVE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords consistency in decision making Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee took note of the panel's analysis that the evidence in the report body does not always match the conclusion as to compliance with certain standards, and that it was not always possible to track all the information required by the standards in the text of the reports. The Register Committee understood that this might in part be a result of the duplication caused by the “add-on” way of incorporating the ESG.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – NVAO – Compliance (2017) decision making
NVAO
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/11/2017 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords decision making Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its last renewal decision (of 1/12/2012), the Register Committee flagged for attention the criteria for outcomes on the accreditation of existing programmes and in particular the consistency of decisions based on reviews undertaken by different agencies.The panel stated that NVAO has taken a number of steps to improve the decision-making process and found that there has been good progress in clarifying criteria for outcomes. The panel further underlined the difficulty of grading outcomes from insufficient to excellent on which further reflection by NVAO will be needed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ANQA – Partial compliance (2017) criteria not published fully
ANQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords criteria not published fully Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel noted that ANQA's evaluation protocols, containing additional details about its standards, and the decision rules, used by the Accreditation Committee to differentiate their different possible accreditation decisions, are not published; the panel recommended that they be published.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – HCERES – Partial compliance (2017) lack of consistent application of criteria for institutional evaluations; lack of criteria for evaluation of study fields
HCERES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords lack of consistent application of criteria for institutional evaluations; lack of criteria for evaluation of study fields Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “With regard to institutional evaluations the panel noted that the application of criteria for outcomes leaves too much room for interpretation and therefore undermines the consistent application of criteria. Considering the agency’s transitioning to evaluation of study fields the review panel further highlighted the need for development of criteria for the outcomes of subject level evaluations.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – ASHE – Partial compliance (2017) lack of transparency in criteria; inconsistency in the application of critera; insufficient documentation for interpretation of criteria
ASHE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords lack of transparency in criteria; inconsistency in the application of critera; insufficient documentation for interpretation of criteria Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The review panel identified that some policies that affect ASHE's decision-making are not fully transparent and known by the stakeholders concerned. The panel further referred to some inconsistency in the application of ASHE's criteria and an insufficiency of the reference documents that panels use to interpret the criteria.”
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 (21/04/2025)
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
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – QAA – Partial compliance (2023) lack of a body to ensure consistency of outcomes
QAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/10/2023 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords lack of a body to ensure consistency of outcomes Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “14. The Register Committee understood from the review panel’s analysis that there is no independent commission that reviews and checks all reports and their application across the agency, which may question whether criteria are being applied uniformly.
15. The Register Committee concurs with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should strongly reflect on its approach to ensuring the consistency of outcomes including the potential need to establish an independent commission that validates reports and makes the final decision.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – GAC – Partial compliance (2022) lack of formal mechanisms for consistency, unclear whether or not consistency improved
GAC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords lack of formal mechanisms for consistency, unclear whether or not consistency improved Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “12. The panel considered critically the lack of formal mechanisms to ensure a consistent understanding and application of the criteria (e.g. guidelines, interpretations or a precedent database made available by GAC).
13. The panel was unable to draw a conclusion whether the post-2018 system – with decisions made by GAC, including the practice to change conditions deviating from the proposal by the expert panels – actually delivered a higher degree of consistency or not.
14. The panel further noted that the current organisation of the Council's work included the risk that analysis of cases might often be “monopolised” in the hands of a single (academic) Council member, while some other Council members are currently not participating in the preparatory work as rapporteurs.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EQ-Arts – Compliance (2021) consistency of decisions
EQ-Arts
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ECA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords consistency of decisions Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (16/03/2021)
RC decision Compliance “12. The panel was convinced that EQ-Arts had “developed a sound approach to guarantee fair and transparent decisions and judgments”; it noted that consistency was ensured by a template with guidelines, the executive officer supporting each expert team and the Board considering each report.
13. [...] In its response, the panel elaborated on the measures taken to ensure consistency and how reviewers are being familiarised with them in EQ-Arts' trainings. The panel explained how it triangulated the information received from the reviewers, the reviewed institutions and the EQ-Arts Board. The panel confirmed that there was a “consistent understanding of procedure and process”. Based on the increased amount of activities, the panel was satisfied that EQ-Arts criteria were applied consistently, irrespective of whether the process leads to a formal decision by the Board.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – AKKORK – Partial compliance (2020) publication of procedures; Criteria are not applied consistently; Lack of consistency in decision making
AKKORK
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords publication of procedures; Criteria are not applied consistently; Lack of consistency in decision making Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s publication of detailed criteria for all its procedures. In its additional representation AKKORK stated that the detailed procedures and criteria for decisions have now been published. The Register Committee could verify that that the criteria are now published. The panel learned that in many cases experts relied on their personal review experience, rather than following AKKORK’s guidelines and methodology, and that AKKORK’s criteria were not applied consistently in the agency’s decision making. According to AKKORK’s revised Guidelines for Reviewers on Conducting External Evaluation of Education Quality and Quality Assurance at Programme level (adopted as of 30/01/2020), experts are expected to follow a clear methodology in their evaluation, and not their personal review experience. In its additional information to the review report, AKKORK stated that its decision-making criteria had been checked for consistency following its external review. The agency further provided a mapping of the scale for its decision making on programme accreditation ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – CTI – Partial compliance (2019) Lack of consistency in its decision making
CTI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Lack of consistency in its decision making Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel’s analysis show that while the standards and criteria for accreditations are explicit and published, there are no clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which a specific decision is made and therefore concluded that consistency may not always be assured. In its response to the review report, CTI stated that it has taken a number of steps towards more consistency i.e. developing a new reporting template and updating its compliance table. The agency further declared that it will revise its rules for decision making for its different types of evaluation procedures following the analysis of its decision-making (after January 2020). The Register Committee welcomed the steps taken by the agency to address the shortcomings in ensuring consistency in its decision making but noted that the changes have not yet come into effect. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that CTI complies only partially with ESG 2.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – EQ-Arts – Partial compliance (2019) limited track record, issues in one specific case
EQ-Arts
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ECA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords limited track record, issues in one specific case Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision Partial compliance “24. The Register Committee considered that there was a limited body of practical experience, even considering the track record built up under ELIA, as EQ-Arts has so far – as pointed out in the panel’s clarification – in its evaluations only “applied criteria in collaborative agreement with those of other bodies in all except the single enhancement carried out in 2017”. Moreover, EQ-Arts (and neither ELIA) has never made any formal assessment decisions itself.
25. The Committee noted the panel’s discussion of the one review carried out in Kazakhstan (see under ESG 3.3), which raised questions whether the agency had applied criteria in a consistent manner.
27. The Register Committee, however, concluded that EQ-Arts did not allay the concerns that stem from the review in Kazakhstan. Despite EQ-Arts' certainly larger track record of critical friend reviews, the review in Kazakhstan represents half of EQ-Arts’ total track record in terms of formal assessments.
28. Given the limited evidence for formal assessments and the fact that the review panel appeared to have had concerns in one out of the two formal assessments carried out so far, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry