Database of Precedents
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – ECCE – Partial compliance (2017) Effectiveness of agency’s IQA
ECCE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords Effectiveness of agency’s IQA Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel recommended that ECCE develop a single consolidated internal quality assurance document that includes internal and external feedback mechanisms for continuous improvement. In its additional representation the agency stated that while the internal QA and professional conduct was an issue at the time of the external review ECCE had since put in place a number of measures to address these issues, i.e. a Complaints and Appeals procedures (document expected to be finalised in May 2017), questionnaires to collect feedback from ECCE committee members and is planning a study to compare its standards. Given that most of these steps are plans and their effectiveness has not yet been reviewed by an external panel, the Register Committee could not conclude that, as it stands, the agency’s internal quality assurance processes are fully sufficient to assure and enhance the quality and integrity of its activities. The Committee underlined the need for an external review of the changes to its internal quality assurance related to defining, assuring and enhancing the quality and integrity of the agency’s activities.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – ACPUA – Compliance (2016) Addressing IQA
ACPUA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Addressing IQA Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “Given that the standards relating to design and approval of programmes (1.2), student-centred learning, teaching and assessment (1.3), student admission, progression, recognition, certification (1.4) and ongoing monitoring and periodic review of programmes (1.9) do not seem to be considered in ACPUA’s institutional-level activities (according to the table on alignment with the ESG) the Register Committee asked the panel (letter of 04/11/2016) to confirm whether they are in fact addressed within ACPUA’s programme accreditation procedures.It its response (letter of 20/11/2016) the Chair of the panel confirmed that the programme accreditation procedures (ex-ante accreditation, follow-up and ex-post accreditation) touch upon all standards of Part 1. As the review took place soon after the publication of the new ESG, the panel could not sufficiently well verify the focus on the new issues brought by ESG 2015, i.e. ESG 1.3 student-centred learning has not been explicitly stated in ACPUA’s evaluation criteria but the panel found there is significant ongoing discussion on how to best approach its inclusion. he Register Committee noted that although ACPUA performs several types of reviews in collaboration with ANECA or with other regional quality assurance agencies (i.e. DOCENTIA, AUDIT reviews) and thus it might not be in the position to modify the criteria and processes, the agency retains full responsibility for how it addresses Part 1 of the ESG in its own procedures that are carried out autonomously irrespective of whether such procedures are voluntary or obligatory in their nature”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – ACPUA – Compliance (2016) Organisational independence
ACPUA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Organisational independence Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that the Board of the agency is chaired by the regional minister who is also responsible for the appointment of the Director of the organisation (following consultation with the Board of Directors).Referring to the independence of the Board the panel stated that while the Minister is the chair of this decision-making body there was no evidence of any political interference over the agency’s activities (Review Report, p.18). The Register Committee was unclear on the evidence supporting the conclusion of the panel and has therefore asked the panel to elaborate on the policies and processes which the panel considered to satisfy itself of the Board’s independence.In its clarification response (of 20/11/2016) the panel stated that the code of ethics extends also to the Board members, but that there were no specific mentions on this during the site visit. The panel satisfied itself on the separation of roles between the Board and technical committees and commented that it has been a positive step to guarantee the independence of the agency’s activities. The members of the technical committees interviewed by the panel reported that they had no political interference in their work. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.4 Thematic analysis – ACPUA – Partial compliance (2016) Lack of systematic approach/lack of resources
ACPUA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.4 Thematic analysis Keywords Lack of systematic approach/lack of resources Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel stated that ACPUA has focused on thematic reports during its first year of existence, however the constraints on human and financial resources have hindered the agency’s activity in this area in recent years. Considering the increased number of external quality assurance activities carried out by ACPUA in recent years, the Register Committee underlined the panel’s recommendation to allocate sufficient resources to the activities supporting thematic analysis and ensure their implementation in a more systematic way”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.5 Resources – ACPUA – Partial compliance (2016) financial sustainability
ACPUA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.5 Resources Keywords financial sustainability Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that ACPUA’s main funding source comes from the regional government. The panel stated that the agency is considering possibilities to diversify its funding revenues and therefore reduce its financial dependence from the Ministry. While the panel commended the agency on the way it has dealt with its tasks considering its limited human and financial resources, it also expressed concerns regarding the agency’s ability to further sustain these efforts and ensure effectiveness in meeting its strategic goals.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ZEvA – Partial compliance (2016) Lack of consistent involvement of students
ZEvA
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
-
2.6 Reporting – ZEvA – Compliance (2016) Publication of reports
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of reports Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “Having been able to verify the publication of reports for certification and audit procedures the Register Committee was however unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of partial compliance and concluded that ZEvA is in fact compliant with ESG 2.6.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ZEvA – Partial compliance (2016) Absence of clear complaints and appeals procedures
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of clear complaints and appeals procedures Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that higher education institutions whose procedures are decided on by the Commission for International Affairs (KIA) do not seem to have an option to lodge complaints or appeals. The Register Committee further considered the panel’s analysis showing that institutions do not have the possibility to launch a complaint to settle conflicts related to ZEvA’s procedures. The panel review also noted that the complaints procedure employed by ZEvA is not visibly communicated on the agency’s website. In its letter to the review panel (of 31/5/2016) ZEvA stated that it has reviewed its rules of procedure to allow handling of all complaints and appeals’ procedures. Additional information on appeals and complaints have been added to the website page of the agency. While the Register Committee took note of ZevA’s response to the review report it could not fully satisfy itself that the updated procedure for complaints and appeals address all concerns raised by the panel”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct – ZEvA – Partial compliance (2016) Efectiveness and clarity of agency’s IQA
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct Keywords Efectiveness and clarity of agency’s IQA Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that ZEvA has a formalised and binding system for internal quality management that is addressed by the “Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance”. In its analysis the panel identified a number of gaps in the agency’s quality assurance system in particular out-dated aspects within the Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance as well as insufficient presentation of the (newer) internationally oriented procedures. For instance the agency’s new external quality assurance activities (i.e. audit and certification procedures) are not fully integrated into the quality handbook; or the newly developed rules for system accreditation are not represented in the Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance.the Register Committee noted that quality assurance processes primarily focus on the programme accreditation activities and that there is little mention of how the outcomes of the processes are used for improvement of the agency’s work and communicated to the users.In its response to the review report analysis the agency (of 30/5/2016) stated that it has provided the panel with a non-revised version of the Guidelines, which in fact have been updated and has incorporated all procedure offered by the agency.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance – AAQ – Compliance (2016) Methodologies under revision at the time of the renewal
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance Keywords Methodologies under revision at the time of the renewal Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that standards 1.1 – 1.10 are clearly addressed in AAQ’s procedures, with two exceptions: the review report noted that AAQ’s methodologies for evaluations and accreditation of basic medical training are currently under revision. The Register Committee underlined that AAQ is required to make (a) Substantive Change Report(s) once the revisions have been completed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.3 Implementing processes – AAQ – Partial compliance (2016) Lack of transparency and precise roles in criteria and procedure for selection of experts and guidelines for decision-making process.
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.3 Implementing processes Keywords Lack of transparency and precise roles in criteria and procedure for selection of experts and guidelines for decision-making process. Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “While the external review report states that AAQ and SAR function well together as a unit, the external review panel considered that the “allocation of duties should be presented with greater transparency in the relevant guidelines” (p. 25). The Register Committee noted that further comments regarding a certain lack of transparency of the precise roles of AAQ and SAR were made by the panel with regard to the criteria and procedure for selection of experts (see 2.4) as well as guidelines for SAR’s decision deviating from the expert-recommended decisions (see 2.5).The Register Committee considered that transparency is crucial especially in a layered system such as that of AAQ and SAR.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.6 Reporting – AAQ – Partial compliance (2016) Publication of negative reports
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.6 Reporting Keywords Publication of negative reports Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (20/04/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “The external review report pointed out that, based on the legal framework in Switzerland, AAQ considered that the publication of the full accreditation report, even with a positive result, would require the consent of the higher education institution concerned.The report considered that – thus far – AAQ was able to agree upon the publication of reports with the higher education institutions on an individual case basis, through corresponding passage in the contracts; it had the express support of the Board of swissuniversities in doing so.
The report further notes that “AAQ currently has no option to effect the publication of negative decisions” (p. 37-38).The external review panel took the view that nothing stood in the way of publishing all reports in full, given that the applicable law included an indirect reference to the ESG and, at the same time, no explicit provision that forbids the publication of full reports.[...]. The panel noted (see letter of 3/11/16) that the possibility of a report not being published was “at the moment a mere theoretical one”, and that AAQ seemed to “avoid discussions of legal theory as long as all works well”. The Register Committee considered that in practice all positive reports are published. It welcomed the agreement of swissuniversities to that effect, while noting that it constitutes a political and not a legally binding commitment.Considering the panel report, clarification and – most importantly – AAQ's own statement, the Register Committee found no evidence that AAQ would interpret the law as suggested by the panel, or refuse to enter a contract with a higher education institution that does not agree to the publication of the report.The Register Committee therefore concluded that there is a possibility – even though theoretical – that a higher education institution may refuse the publication of the accreditation report.
The Committee also noted that the existing arrangements do not affect procedures resulting in a negative decision.
The Register Committee therefore concluded that AAQ’s practice did not change compared to the time when it was admitted (then as OAQ) to the Register, and the issue of publication of reports was flagged for future attention.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AAQ – Partial compliance (2016) Limited scope of complaints
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Limited scope of complaints Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that AAQ and SAR provide a formalised complaints process for higher education institutions. The external review panel was, however, “more critical of the limited subject scope of the complaints procedure because, (…), higher education institutions can currently only complain about SAR’s decisions and not about possible errors in the implementation of the procedure” (p. 41).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.3 Independence – AAQ – Compliance (2016) Organisational and operational independence
AAQ
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by GAC Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.3 Independence Keywords Organisational and operational independence Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that the review panel confirmed the organisational independence of SAR and AAQ in practice, despite a residual potential influence by the agency’s sponsors and clients, which was described as a “risk to the agency’s independence that should not be underestimated” (p. 48-49).While the review panel considered that the concrete organisation of the selection procedure of SAR members guarded against any possibility that one side may exert a particular influence, the review panel noted that the selection procedure was not codified in any official document. Consequently, the panel recommended to specify the selection procedures and criteria in a binding document.The review panel further noted that SAR applies equivalent principles of conduct than AAQ, but that this was not sufficiently transparent at the present. The panel advised SAR to set down these principles in its own code of conduct or, for example, to adopt AAQ’s existing code of conduct, and to ultimately publish its code of conduct.”
Full decision: see agency register entry