European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education

Quality Assurancein the EHEA (Bologna Process)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ASEM Conference “Quality Assurance and Recognition in Higher Education: Challenges and Prospects” 6-7 December 2010, Mediterranean Beach Hotel, Limassol, Cyprus--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Andreas G. OrphanidesPresident, Board of EQAR

Rector, European University CyprusVice-President, EURASHE

1. Quality Assurance in the EHEA (Bologna Process)2. European Standards and Guidelines for Quality

Assurance (ESG)3. European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)4. Application criteria and process5. How the Register is used at national level

Quality in the Bologna Process

1999Bologna

2001Prague

2003Berlin

2005Bergen

2007London

European cooperation in quality assurance

Primary responsibility of HE

institutions for quality

European Standards and GuidelinesRegister of QA agencies

Cooperation of QA agencies and HE

institutions

E4 Group

2008

Founding of EQAR

European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) Common reference points for quality

assurance of higher education To enhance comparability of QA in Europe To facilitate mutual trust and recognition of QA

as well as qualifications Encompassing the diversity of higher

education systems in Europe Agreed shared principles No detailed norms No checklist

ESG – development and structure Developed by the E4 Group

QA agencies (ENQA) Higher education institutions (EUA, EURASHE) Students (ESU)

Agreed by the Bologna Process (2005) ministers Central responsibility of higher education institutions

for their quality (see also Berlin Communiqué, 2003)

Part 3:External

QA agencies

Part 2:External

QA of HEIs

Part 1:Internal

QA by HEIs

ESG part 1 – overview

ESG for the internal quality assurance within institutions

1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of prog.3. Assessment of students4. Quality assurance of teaching staff5. Learning resources and student support6. Information systems7. Public information

ESG part 2 – overview

ESG for the external quality assurance of insitutions1. Use of internal QA procedures (ESG Part 1)2. Development of external QA processes3. Criteria for decisions4. Processes fit for purpose5. Reporting6. Follow-up procedures7. Periodic reviews8. System-wide analyses

ESG part 3 – overview

ESG for external quality assurance agencies1. Use of external QA procedures (ESG Part 2)2. Official status3. Independence4. Activities5. Resources6. Mission statement7. External quality assurance criteria and processes8. Accountability

ESG 2.5 Reporting

Standard: “Reports should be published and should be written in a style, which is clear and readily accessible to its intended

readership. Any decisions, commendations or recommendations contained in reports should be easy for a

reader to find.”Issues frequently addressed:

Risk of un-accessible reports – different target groups have different needs

Delays in report drafting and publication Robustness of drafting and adoption procedures

ESG 3.6 Independence

Standard: “Agencies should be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the conclusions and

recommendations made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders.”

A lot of structural considerations ... Legal status and links/relations codified in laws etc.

... but how independent are operations in practice? Financing arrangements/control over own resources Independence as perceived by other relevant actors Involvement of diverse stakeholders in governance Recruitment and appointment of external expert teams

2.4 Processes fit for purpose &3.7 Ext. QA criteria and processes

Processes and criteria should be: fit for their purpose pre-defined and publicly available

General expectations (“widely used elements”) Use of the self-evaluation/site visit/review

report/follow-up model Participation of students and international experts Training and careful selection of experts Possibility to appeal decisions

2.6 Follow-up procedures &2.7 Periodic reviews

Standards: “Quality assurance processes which contain recommendations for action or which require a subsequent action plan, should have a predetermined follow-up procedure which is

implemented consistently.” - “External quality assurance of institutions and/or programmes should be undertaken on a

cyclical basis. [...]”External QA is no “once in a lifetime” exerciseFocus on improvement and continuous enhancement rather than only controlBalance between follow-up and overburdening

The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR)

“EQAR’s mission is to further the development of the European Higher Education Area by increasing

transparency of quality assurance, and thus enhancing trust and confidence in European higher education.”

A register of credible and legitimate QA agencies Substantial compliance with the European Standards

and Guidelines (ESG) as criterion for inclusion Evidenced through an external review by independent

experts Open to European and non-European agencies

Stakeholder-managed Founded (2008) by ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE (E4)

EQAR – main objectives

EQAR

Founding Members

E4 Group

Register Committee11 members in their individual capacity

5 government observers

General Assembly

Executive Board

4 members (E4)

Governmental Members EHEA Governments, CoE, CEPES

Election on proposal of E4

Approval based on nominations

Secretariat: Director + Administrative assistant

Social Partners BE and EI

Appeals Committee

Election2 members each nominated by ENQA, EUA, EURASHE, ESU

1 member each nominated by Education International and Business Europe1 additional chair elected by the Register Committee5 government observers

3 members

President Two Vice-Presidents Treasurer Register Committee chair (ex officio, non-voting)

Overview: Inclusion onthe Register

1. self-evaluation produced by the QA agency2. site visit by independent review team

(QA professionals, students and academics)3. external review report (compliance with ESG)4. application for inclusion on EQAR5. decision by EQAR Register Committee 16

Criteria and process: two-step procedure

1. Requirements for external review process Review team must reflect stakeholder perspectives Independence of the review coordinator and team Clear reference of the review to the ESG (parts 2 and 3)

2. Substantial compliance with the ESG Comprehensive judgement, no checklist No numerical rules such as: “At least x ESG must be in full

compliance.” Yes/no decision, no conditional or provisional inclusion

The second step is the crucial part!

Overview: applications for inclusion on EQAR

Autumn 2008

Spring 2009

Summer 2009

Spring 2010

Autumn 2010 Total

Applications 10 4 8 4 5 31

- accepted 7 3 8 1 5 24

- rejected 1 0 0 - 2 3

- withdrawn 2 1 0 - - 3

- pending - - - 3 1 1

Scope of Inclusion on the Register

Geographical As a rule, expected that ESG are complied with

wherever agencies operate, inside or outside EHEA Anything else would be more complicated and less

transparent, and could be misleading Activities

The ESG are about audit, evaluation, accreditation etc of institutions or programmes - other activities (meta-level, standard setting etc) are not pertinent

Using the ESG

The ultimate criterion is substantial compliance with the ESG No numerical rules, no checklist But: a comprehensive and holistic judgement

There are a number of challenges: External review teams use different scales

(mostly, all or some of the following: no, partial, substantial or full compliance)

Using the ESG (2)

... challenges: Some teams make overall judgements, others don’t Some standards might be interpreted differently National legislation is accepted as “excuse” to

different extents Level of detail in analysing differs significantly

Register Committee has to level out a range of different approaches and interpretations, and might reach a different conclusion than the review team

Relevance for higher education institutions

“provide a basis for national authorities to authorise higher education institutions to choose any agency from the Register, if that is compatible with national arrangementsprovide a means for higher education institutions to choose between different agencies, if that is compatible with national arrangements”

(E4 Report to Bologna Ministers)Opportunity for institutions to work with a QA agency that best suits its mission and profileFacilitate quality assurance of joint programmes involving institutions from several countries

How national systems refer to the Register Austria: plans to allow universities to choose freely from

amongst registered agencies for their reviews (proposal) Denmark: automatic recognition of accreditation by EQAR-

registered agencies for ERASMUS Mundus programmes (proposal)

Germany: national regulatory body for QA (Accreditation Council) can ratify decisions of foreign EQAR-registered agencies

Liechtenstein: does not have its own national agency, but the university should choose a registered agency to be externally reviewed (proposal)

Romania: after initial accreditation by national agency, HE institutions can choose from registered agencies freely for external evaluation

Thank you for your attention!