Database of Precedents

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	no student on a panel at a request of an individual HEI
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. [...] students had not been involved in the panels for enhancement reviews previously.

18. [...] The panel’s clarification confirmed that student involvement on panel’s was not yet a fully established practice across all reviews, but that students will be part of all future procedures.

20. [...] The Committee, however, noted that the December 2018 review of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK) in Ghent did not include a student panel member; with a note in the report that “contrary to EQ-Arts’ policy and practice, it was the decision and request of School of Art KASK that a student panel member was not included in this review process”.

21. The Register Committee concluded that EQ-Arts was apparently ready to make such exceptions, which are in contradiction to ESG standards. The Committee underlined that such exceptions are incompatible with the spirit of a predefined quality assurance process that is implemented consistently.

22. As EQ-Arts does not stringently implement its policy as regards student panel members, 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

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in ex-ante procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that students are not involved in ex-ante accreditation of new institutions, the accreditation of doctoral schools and in the initial evaluation of programmes. The Register Committee agrees with the panel’s reasoning that the anonymity of experts in ex-ante evaluations precludes evaluators for becoming answerable for their decisions.[...] The agency also stated that the practice of maintaining the anonymity of experts will be changed following the Board’s decision (of February 2019). Regarding the involvement of students in the ex ante evaluations, the agency argued that students are involved in the decision-making process, as members of the expert committees where findings are discussed and that all eight expert committees now involve a student. In the view of the agency ex-ante evaluations call for an academic judgement as the focus is on academic content. The Register Committee welcomed HAC’s decision to lift the anonymity of experts (in case of ex-ante procedures) and acknowledged HAC’s intention to address the involvement of students in its follow-up report to the coordinator. The Committee nevertheless noted that such changes are yet to take place, and underlined that students should be appropriately involved in all peer expert groups, including the ex-ante evaluation stage as per the requirement of the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/03/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	infrequent involvement of students in some procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (05/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The involvement of student reviewers in reviews for Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Committee noted that student reviewers now take part in these reviews […]. The panel's report, however, suggested that the standard was not fully met, as there were no student review panel members in some of QAA's review methods. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel in that regard. The Committee noted that students are not on the review teams for General Osteopathic Council reviews (GosC); and it could not be established how frequently students are on the panels for Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) or Transnational Education review (TNE).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in some reviews and involvement limited to student matters; anonymous review team experts, site-visit undertaken by an agency sub-commission instead of the group of exprts which prepared the report
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that students (and employer representatives) take part in periodic programme accreditations only when they are combined with institutional ones. The panel also noted that the involvement of students is limited to student matters.The Committee further noted that at the time of the application by CAQA review team experts remained anonymous and that their involvement was limited to assessing compliance based on documentation. The site visits were undertaken by a CAQA sub-commission, which subsequently prepared the final report integrating the experts' feedback.The Register Committee considered that this arrangement did not meet the requirement of the standard and that assessments should be undertaken by a “group of external experts”. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement & training of experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“While the panel confirmed the practice of involving students as review experts in all ARACIS’s reviews, including at programme level, the panel added that at the time of its review the agency had had little practical experience. The panel further commented that “some evaluation panels treated student members as supernumeraries and not as full partner-evaluators in the review exercise and that some evaluators were not attuned to the necessity for ‘student centeredness’ in higher education and what that required of tutors and of them as evaluators.” (Review Report, p. 35)

In its additional representation ARACIS [...] commented that its policies and procedures gave students equal rights and obligations i.e. the coverage of mission costs and remuneration is the same as for the other members, and that students are required to participate in the Council, the Permanent Speciality Commission and expert panels. (p. 8-9) ARACIS further added that one of the aspects considered in the selection process of the Permanent Speciality Commission in 2018 was the understanding of students’ role and involvement in quality assurance activities.

The Register Committee noted that, while ARACIS regularly offers training sessions for its evaluators, the panel found that the format for training sessions offered few opportunities for learning through simulation and practical exercise and that the ‘virtual’ and ‘online’ training were lacking in efficacy. In the additional representation, ARACIS clarified that the e-platform is a complementary facility to the face to face training sessions and not a substitute. [..] The agency provided a list of past training sessions focused on the practical activity of the Permanent Speciality Commissions.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in external review process
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the involvement of students in all external review expert groups.The panel’s findings showed that students participate in all SKVC’s expert teams for all types of evaluations, whether in Lithuania or abroad. In its interviews the panel also learned that students were not always involved equally in the external review process, an issue that was mostly depended on the chair of the team (Review report pg. 36).The Register Committee noted that SKVC involved students in all its reviews and has therefore addressed the flag. he Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that SKVC could play a more supportive role in ensuring that students participate as equal members in all panels.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of involvement of students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of initial inclusion (18/05/2011) the Register Committee flagged the participation of international experts and students. The panel noted that usually two experts are involved in the evaluation of bachelor and master programmes, and that these panels do not include students. According to the review panel, HCERES found it very hard to recruit students due to their need for extra time to carry out evaluations alongside their studies. The Register Committee further noted that in the ‘evaluation of doctoral schools’ the agency included a recent doctoral graduate rather than an actual student or doctoral candidate (p. 13 external evaluation report). The panel further noted that the involvement of students in institutional evaluations is limited to panel discussions. In its statement to the review report (of 10/03/2017) the agency, however, commented that students have the same role and responsibilities as other members of the panel in institutional evaluations. The Register Committee concluded that the agency has not addressed the flag and does not meet the requirements of standard 2.4 to involve students in all its external quality assurance activities.While considering that the failure to meet the requirement of the standard concerns a large proportion of HCERES' activity, the Register Committee noted that due to the immanent transition from programme accreditation to the evaluation of study fields, the involvement of students is to be resolved in this new setting.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Inadequate and insufficient preparation of experts in system accreditation
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel considered that ACQUIN generally follows common practice in terms of preparation of experts, but remarked critically that ”ACQUIN only ensures a minimum for the preparation for the system accreditation”. The panel specifically noted that the preparation of experts in system accreditation was less intensive compared to other agencies working under the auspices of the German Accreditation Council (GAC). Consequently, the panel recommended that ACQUIN offer at least voluntary trainings or workshops to those experts. The development of ACQUIN's activities for training and preparation of experts was flagged for attention when ACQUIN's registration was last renewed. Considering the assessment by the panel, the Register Committee concluded that practice did not change materially and the issue was therefore not resolved”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	(non-local) student involvement
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee took note of the explanation in ASIIN's additional representation of its policy and efforts to recruit “local” students, i.e. coming from the same country as the institutions under review. The Committee noted that the participation of students nationally and internationally was increased “to practically 100%”. The Register Committee noted that there was only one case reported where no student could be recruited for the panel. The Register Committee, however, underlined that it would not be compatible with the ESG to use the policy in the sense that only a local student can be appointed. That is, if no local student can be recruited for whatever reason, ASIIN is obliged to involve a non-local student, rather than no student at all.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	20/06/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Independence of the review panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The panel stated that the agency’s conflict of interest procedure has not been addressed since the agency’s initial review. The analysis of the panel showed that ECCE’s procedure lack clear criteria with regards to areas of possible conflict of interest and that this has led to unsatisfactory choices of experts in a number of reviews carried out by ECCE. The panel further expressed concern regarding the presence of an evaluation secretary from ECCE’s staff within each expert panel. In its additional representation ECCE stated that it has nominated two non-chiropractic experts to evaluation panels and that it has de-centralised the secretary function, so that there is a separate secretary for each review. The Register Committee noted that ECCE has made steps to address the independence of its review panels. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by GAC
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of consistent involvement of students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its decision of renewal (of 25/11/2011) the Register Committee flagged the lack of involvement of international experts and representation of the perspectives of students and professional practice in assessments of large clusters including study programmes from different disciplines.In the review report, the panel noted that ZEvA appoints external expert groups in all procedures, and as a general rule at least one student member is included in these groups. The Register Committee however noted that while the agency has involved students in most of its reviews it has not done so for any of its certification procedures and at least one programme accreditation (i.e. PhD in World Maritime University).While the panel formed the view that overall ZEvA’s procedures are well structured in its key areas of activity the newly added procedures, i.e. certification procedures lacked clear statements regarding the processes and responsibilities for the selection, nomination and appointment of experts. In ZEvA’s response to the panel’s report (of 31/5/2016) the agency stated that the responsibility for the appointment of experts lies with the consulting commission and that this has been clarified within the updated Guidelines for Certification and Quality Guidelines. The Register Committee noted the agency’s clarification and action taken to address the panel’s concern.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students, panel members
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (17/02/2023)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. The panel noted that the internal system of the agency generally aimed to have students in every expert panel, in each of ANECA’s procedure. The panel, however, found out that the majority of AUDIT INTERNATIONAL experts panels did not include students (see clarification of 2023-02-17).

11. According to the panel, ANECA found it challenging to ensure student participation in these experts panel due to the limited availability of the students. The Committee acknowledged that recruiting student experts might be more difficult for some reviews than for others, but underlined that this challenge has to be addressed by any agency and cannot serve as a reason to carry out reviews without student panel members.

12. Given the absence of students from most expert panels for AUDIT INTERNATIONAL, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but concluded that ANECA only partially complies with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

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

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/10/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in review panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“11. The Register Committee already noted in its change report decision (of 2022-10-28) that QAA has changed its policy since the last review and addressed the concerns raised as regards to student involvement in review panels.

12. The Committee was reassured by the panel’s analysis that showed that QAA ensures there is always a student included in its panels for all of the activities under review, except for follow-up visits. The Register Committee understands that follow-up visits are part of an external QA activity, and not a separate activity on its own and therefore finds this approach acceptable.

13. The Register Committee therefore finds the earlier issues addressed and concur with the panel’s recommendation that QAA should extend its pool of international reviewers in light of its own increasing rate of international reviews.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	12/12/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student in panel
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. The Register Committee stressed in its Substantive Change Report Decision of 2021-10-22 that the group of experts in the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure, does not include a student. While the Committee understands that this procedure was created as a temporary and short-term solution in order to close possible gaps in the accreditation periods of programmes (until the next re-accreditation of the corresponding study field), the Committee could not follow the agency’s decision of not involving students, as per the requirement of the standard 2.4.

18. The Register Committee further noted from the review panel’s report that the agency has not resolved this issue and sustained its position that two experts should be sufficient in this procedure.

19. Considering AIC’s statement to the report that, the Register Committee understood that AIC is applying the national framework. The Committee however underlined that it is AIC’s responsibility to ensure ESG compliance with all standards and that it has taken measures to ensure the involvement of students in all procedures.

20. The Register Committee underlines the panel’s recommendation to include student-members in all procedures involving external experts, in particular in the procedures for Inclusion of a licensed study programme in the accreditation form of study field.

21. In its additional representation, AIC explained that the inclusion of licenced study programme on the accreditation of study field procedure is not a stand-alone procedure, but a temporary measure while the new quality assurance system from 2025 will include students in all procedures. The Register Committee however noted that students are at the time not included in this procedure, as the new system is not implemented yet. The Register Committee underlined the expectation of the standard, that

students should be involved in all QA processes.

22. The Register Committee concurs with the panel that AIC complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	11/10/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“26. The Register Committee learned from the analysis of the panel that at the time of the review, some provider and programme accreditation procedures did not involve experts and that these procedures were conducted by MFHEA’s staff. The Committee understood that the only reviews that involved panels were the accreditation procedures for provider seeking university status and EQA Audit (see also ESG 2.3).

27. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that the revised manuals, referenced earlier in this decision, require that now every procedure is conducted by an external review panel of a minimum of three experts out of whom one is a student.

28. The Register Committee took note of the actions taken by the agency. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm whether these changes have been implemented in practice.

29. In its additional representation, MFHEA referred to the new manuals for provider and programme accreditation where the involvement of students in every external review panel will be guaranteed. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that despite that, the new Programme Accreditation Manual would be in place as of January 2025, the agency already includes students in the review panels for programme accreditation procedures.

30. From the additional representation, the Committee has learned that at the given time only a very small portion of programme accreditation reports are available on MFHEA’s website and further publication of reports is planned in January 2025 (see ESG 2.6). From the limited number of reports available online, the Committee could see that the agency started including a student reviewer in the expert panel.

31. The Register Committee welcomed the changes made by the agency in order to involve students in all external review procedures and encouraged MFHEA to continue this practice. The Committee, however, found that it remains to be evaluated by an external panel whether the planned changes have been consistently implemented and students are included in all programme review panels once the new programme accreditation manual is adopted. Therefore, the Committee concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Absence of student reviewers; Training of student reviewers
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“10. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2024-11-05), A3ES was found to be partially compliant with the standard due to the absence of student reviewers in panels in the New Study Programmes (NCE) procedures and overseas accreditations. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that the status quo has not changed.

11. Furthermore, the Committee understood that except for initial trainings, the agency does not organise systematic training for new or revised processes and that some reviewers, including students, have not received training in the past five years. Furthermore, the Committee understood that student reviewers receive only training for programme reviews, but not for institutional reviews.

12. Given the lack of students involvement in some procedures and the lack of systemic training for reviewers, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion, and found that A3ES remains to be partially compliant with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Peer-review experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“11. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that, in the ex-post accreditation reviews are collaborative effort between the panel and the Commission of Study Programmes Evaluation (CET). In particular, the Criterion 3 of the methodology is pre-evaluated by a member of the CET. Even though it is not currently the practice, these members can also participate in the external site visit.

12. The Register Committee shared the panel’s concerns that the current set up in which the CET members are participating both in the external evaluation and the decision making on the final outcomes of the review may lead to a potential conflict of interest. Further, the Register Committee noted that this arrangement is contrary to the requirement that external quality assurance is conducted by a group of external experts.

13. The Register Committee also learned that follow-up activities are not conducted by panels, but directly by CET sub-commissions. CET sub-commission includes a chairperson, two academic members, one student member and one quality spokesperson.

14. Given the above mentioned issues, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ASHE
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Implementation of procedures and transparency of CBQA procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its last review the Register Committee noted that ASIIN's policies were not always followed in practice, i.e. use of on-site visits in evaluations and use of evaluation results in programme accreditations. In its current review, the panel stated that it did not find any evidence of deviations from the prescribed procedures and that policies are implemented consistently. The panel, however, remarked that ASIIN could provide better guidance about the site visit schedule and ensure more transparency in the processing of requests deemed potentially problematic from countries of higher education institutions outside of the European Higher Education Area (see also under ESG 3.1).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Lack of on site visits; Lack of interviews with stakeholders
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2021)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“absence of any standard framework or guidance as to the use of site visits or interviews in thematic evaluations, makes it unclear whether the agency has sufficient approaches to validate the evidences provided by HEIsin this activity. In addition, the panel's report touched only briefly on the suitability of online interviews instead of regular site visits in the activities program evaluation and appraisal of applications for degree-awarding powers.”

Full decision: see agency register entry