Database of Precedents

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 decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the decision-making processes of the agency for accreditation and the practice in which accreditation decisions are taken by a single person (the Director).The panel noted that accreditation decisions are taken by the SKVC director upon advice of one of the two advisory commissions. In the view of the panel the role of the advisory commission should be limited to checking the reliability of the outcomes of the evaluation, leaving the final decision to the director to avoid unnecessary costly and complicated processes.The Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation concerning the improvement of the agency’s criteria for programme accreditation with more elaborate definitions of its scores.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Publishing of the criteria for international institutional accreditation
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (22/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that AQAS's criteria for international institutional accreditation were not published at the time of the review. The Register Committee took note of AQAS' statement on the review report and that AQAS now published the criteria for international institutional accreditation on its website. The Register Committee further noted that AQAS published the criteria without the additional “indicators”, which illustrates what is covered by a criterion. The Committee sought and received clarification by the review panel as to whether it considered publication without the “indicators” as sufficient. The Register Committee took note of the explanation that due to plagiarism and copyright infringements experienced in the past, AQAS published the criteria without additional, detailed material, while the “indicators” were made available to institutions applying for accreditation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	lack of transparency in criteria for awarding the premium seal
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the decision of renewal of FIBAA’s registration, the Register Committee flagged for attention the lack of transparency in the agency’s criteria for awarding the “FIBAA Premium” seal to accredited programmes.The panel noted that FIBAA has made improvements to the transparency of its procedure, including to the criteria for awarding the premium seal. The panel, however, underlined that the weighing of the criteria is not sufficiently transparent as this information it is not made accessible for external parties (in particular to higher education institutions).

In its statement to the review report the agency stated that weighing for the criteria for awarding the premium seal (along with the other criteria) are published on the homepage of FIBAA. The Register Committee was able to verify this information and therefore concluded that the agency has addressed the flag. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	difference in reports regarding recommendations and level of compliance/Inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation,
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted some inconsistencies between the provisions for programme accreditation and institutional accreditation, i.e. the IQAA Accreditation Council can only modify the points awarded for decisions in case of programme accreditation but not for institutional accreditation. The panel further noted that it is not always clear how the number and weight of recommendations is linked to the compliance levels of each standard i.e. some reports may include recommendations or critical comments, while other reports do not although in both cases the standard is considered ‘fully compliant’. The panel considered this was a result of the fact that the guidelines for experts are not sufficiently precise. The panel recommended a revision of the agency’s decision-making algorithm, in particular a clarification of the minimum requirements to be fulfilled by higher education institutions and the acceptable shortcomings for each of the four levels of compliance within IQAA’s accreditation standards.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency in decision making across different technical committees.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the previous renewal of ACQUIN’s registration, EQAR had flagged for attention “ whether measures have been taken to enhance consistency in decision-making across different technical committees”. The panel reported that it had discussed the consistency of evaluations and decisions by ACQUIN in detail during the site visit. The panel established that no structural change had been implemented to improve the situation since the last review. While the report refers to one formal meeting between the chairs of the standing committees in 2014, such meetings do not seem to be institutionalised and regular. Given the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	consistency and clarity of the criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s analysis showed that the agency’s criteria are unclear with regard to the period of institutional accreditation. The accreditation is given for a period of up to five years, but there is no specification in which cases the accreditation period will be shorter than five years. In its clarification to the additional representation (letter of 02/05/2017) ECCE stated that it had developed a “Compliance Table” and a list of the critical standards to assist panels as well as institutions to understand the expectation of each standard. ECCE expects to formally adopt this practice at their general meeting in November

2017. While the Register Committee acknowledge ECCE’s plans of a new set of criteria to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of criteria, the Committee noted that the agency has neither published the ‘Compliance Table’ nor formalised this practice.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (10/02/2023)
RC decision	Compliance

“15. The Register Committee noted that NVAO-NL may modify a recommendation for a positive outcome in a panel report, although it has never so far questioned this. The Committee was unclear on the situations that may lead to a deviation from the outcome of a panel’s report and whether such deviations are documented.

16. In its clarification response (of 10/02/2023) the review panel explained that NVAO-NL may occasionally seek additional information from panels and in a limited number of cases, and after due deliberation may expand conditions or deviate in a minor sense from the panel’s advice. Such changes may be done by NVAO-NL to reduce the subjectivity of reports and ensure the consistency of recommendations as well as of the final outcome. Deviations from the final recommendation of the panel have not happened yet, but according to the agency’s procedure these changes are documented in the final published decision by NVAO-NL.

17. Having considered the clarification provided, the Register Committee can now follow the panel’s conclusion of compliance with the standard 2.5.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	30/06/2023
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period inconsistent
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“12. The Committee noted from the panel’s report that it is now clear what level of compliance a programme must achieve to receive the full 8-year accreditation period. At the same time, the definition of shorter accreditation periods remained unclear: the panel also confirmed in its clarification that there are no specific criteria or guidelines that determine by how much the period gets shortened.

13. In its additional representation the agency explained its methodology and criteria for the different re-accreditation period. While the Register Committee found a clear reasoning in the agency’s response, the Committee could not understand why the cited information (i.e. table and explanation provided) was not integrated in the agency’s procedures i.e., Accreditation Procedures and Standards. In particular, the Committee found the provided information on the length of the accreditation cycle i.e., of five years, to be completely missing from the agency’s procedure for re-accreditation (see Accreditation Procedures and Standards 5.3 – November 2019 Section 3.2.4.2.1).

14. Given the inconsistencies in the agency’s explanations and the presentation of ECTE’s criteria in its own procedures, the Register Committee was not persuaded that the agency ensured a consistent application of its criteria in its decision making.

15. The Committee also considered that this issue was amplified by the fact that there is no decision document (see also ESG 2.6), i.e., the Quality Assurance & Accreditation Committee’s (QAAC’s) considerations and argumentation on why a certain length of accreditation period was decided are currently not recorded in any public document.

16. The Register Committee thus remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that ECCE only partially complied with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Inconsistent use of tools for decision making; Consistency in the interpretation of the agency’s criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/05/2024)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that, out of 24 applications concluded between

2022 and 2024, the final conclusions on the standards differed from those

proposed by the panels in four cases – three of which occurred in

2024. This

trend resulted in either more or less favourable outcomes for the concerned

higher education institutions.The Committee could not understand, without a panel insight, whether

the increased discrepancy between the panels’ and the Authorisation

Council’s conclusions occurring after the site visit (2023-11-05) steams from

the (im)proper use of the tools for consistent application of agency’s criteria

or other external factors (see more in ESG 3.3)”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	inconsistency in outcomes
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“32. MFHEA has established a National Quality Assurance Framework (NQAF), which sets the parameters for external quality assurance in Malta. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the review, only the standards for the EQA Audit procedures mirrored the NQAF standards and that only for that procedure the criteria were clearly defined and ensure a consistent judgement of each standard.

33. The panel noted several inconsistencies regarding the rest of the MFHEA’s activities. For example, the NQAF standards for programme accreditation were not clearly referred to in the internal application form. Similar challenges were noted in the report for awarding university status to a provider; the report did not follow the application form where the NQAF standards were referred to.

34. Furthermore, the panel could not find further evidence that the agency had a clear approach which standards and procedure manuals are applied in its activities. The panel could not find consistency in the agency’s guidelines, standards and manuals. The panel was also unable to find guiding criteria for outcomes in order to ensure a consistent judgement for all types of providers and programme accreditation.

35. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that it addressed some of the panel’s recommendations in its revision of the Accreditation Manual for Higher Education Institutions; for the Committee, though, it was unclear what particular changes took place to address the shortcomings. The agency also explained that they will further address the shortcomings in the new

Programme Accreditation Manual in January 2025.

36. The Committee could follow the panel’s view and found that the agency did not have clear criteria for outcomes and that there is lack of consistency in their implementation for most of its procedures, as well as the lack of systemic approach to ensuring consistency in its decision making.

37. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that the concerns raised by the Register Committee have been or will be addressed with the respective manuals for provider and programme accreditation procedures. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that at the given time, they are designing the guidelines for the Quality Assurance Committee and its peer reviewers to refine its criteria for outcomes.

38. The Register Committee noted the steps taken by MFHEA to formulate its criteria for outcomes for programme and provider accreditation procedures in a clear manner in its new manuals. The Register Committee, however, found it challenging to assess the practical implementation without a panel insight. The Committee also found that the new programme evaluation manual is yet to be adopted and implemented in practice. Following this, the Committee thus concurred with the panel’s conclusion that MFHEA complies partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Lack of clear deliberation rules
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.

8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.

9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

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

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

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

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 (22/04/2025)
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

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

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

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