quality a ssurance and accreditation in higher education

Golden Sands – 16 June 2009ByMagda Kirsch (EduconsultHans Daale (LEIDO)

1QA in HE - Varna 2009

Growing stronger in Bologna * Sorbonne, 1998* Bologna, 1999:

- the Golden Triangle of Bologna reforms: Ba/Ma + ECTS + QA/accreditation

* Salamanca, 2001: self-regulation* Prague, 2001: scenarios for mutual acceptance of QA/accreditation* Graz/Berlin 2003: renewed request to ENQA, in cooperation with others; diverging views, relevant seminars on way to Bergen 2005


3

[The ministers] agree that by 2005 national quality assurance systems should include: A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies

and institutions involved Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including

internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the

publication of results A system of accreditation, certification or

comparable procedures International participation, co-operation and

networking

QA in HE - Varna 2009

4

Ministers call upon ENQA through its members, in co-operation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB, to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies


A network to disseminate information, experiences, good practices, and new developments in quality assessment and quality assurance in HE.

An important step towards a pan-European framework of quality management.

Originates from the European Pilot project for Evaluating Quality in HE. (September 1998, EC recommendation)

Has been very active and important to BP.5QA in HE - Varna 2009

Ministers adopted the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area as proposed by ENQA (ESG). They commited themselves to introducing the proposed model for peer review of quality assurance agencies on a national basis,

They also welcomed the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review.

They ask that the practicalities of implementation be further developed by ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE and ESIB with a report back through the Follow-up Group.

They stress importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions.


7

Internal quality assurance External quality assurance External quality assurance agencies


Policy and procedures for quality assurance,

Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards,

Assessment of students, Quality assurance of teaching staff, Learning resources and student support, Information systems Public information:


Use of internal quality assurance procedures,

Development of external quality assurance processes,

Criteria for decisions, Processes fit for purpose, Reporting, Follow-up procedures, Periodic reviews, System-wide analyses.


External QA criteria and processes used by the agencies are predefined and publicly available and include: a self-assessment or equivalent procedure by

the subject of QA process; an external assessment by a group of experts,

including, as appropriate, (a) student member(s), and

site visits as decided by the agency; publication of a report, including any decisions,

recommendations or other formal outcomes; a follow-up procedure to review actions taken

by the subject of the QA process. Accountability procedures:


11

Ministers in London agreed with proposal to establish the Register, along the lines proposed by E4, based on the ESG

ESG do not refer to qualifications frameworks as such

Guideline for standard 1.2: The quality assurance of programmes and

awards are expected to include: Development and publication of explicit intended

learning outcomes


Representatives from 13 accreditation organisations from 13 countries (A, B nl, D, IRL, NO, E, CH, NL) + Joint Quality Initiative + EC (Hague, June 2003).

Initial aim: Development of a concept of accreditation that not only serves the national needs but also the needs of the emerging EHEA.

Ultimate aim: Mutual recognition of accreditation. Participants were against imposing accreditation

as the sole instrument for QA, and stressed that ECA should collaborate with ENQA.


HUGE DIVERGENCE IN NATIONAL SYSTEMS- out of a jungle of degrees,- into a jungle of QA/accreditation agencies ?

NEW NEEDS IN QA / ACCREDITATION- shorter higher education

- LLL- private universities, transnational education

ISSUES- becoming stronger where problems are least ?- consequence of accreditation in one EU country?


We [the ministers] ask the E4 group (ENQA-EUA-EURASHE-ESU) to continue its cooperation in further developing the European dimension of quality assurance and in particular to ensure that the European Quality Assurance Register is evaluated externally, taking into account the views of the stakeholders.


Internal quality control, which results in self-evaluation

External visitation, which results in a public report

Accreditation


Colleges of higher education and universities carry out their own internal quality control through self-evaluation

IQC belongs to the autonomy of the HEI’s who can choose their own system

HEI’s have to write a SER This SER and its annexes serve as a

basis for the in-site visitation.


Format for self-evaluation report provided by Council for Higher Education

Self-evaluation report (SER) is written by the HEI’s

Upon completion, the SER and the addenda are reviewed by an international team of experts


Visitations of courses are conducted on a regular basis by a committee of external experts who draw up a public report,

The visitation evaluates both the quality of education and of research activities,

Can be for one course or a cluster of related courses,

All courses in the same field are reviewed at the same time

Organisation by VLIR or VLHORA.


Visitation panel will audit the course and see whether the learning outcomes meet the competences laid down by law (Dublin descriptors) or in the DSRF,

They do this through: Interviews with all the stakeholders (students,

teachers, employers, alumni), Visit of the premises, Going through course materials and

documentation.


The on-site visitation results in a public report that is published in the websites of VLIR and VLHORA,

This report will serve as a basis for accreditation by the NVAO,

The HEI has to present the report to the NVAO within one year.


Accreditation by NVAO (Accreditation organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders)

Formal recognition that a course attains the international minimum quality standards,

Condition for carrying the higher education label and for granting the bachelor and master degrees,

Positive accreditation is granted for 8 years.


Accreditation is granted by the NVAO – The Accreditation Organisation for the Netherlands and Flanders,

This entails that accreditation is not national but international,

Visitation panels also consist of experts from the two countries thus guaranteeing that courses/programmes meet international quality standards.


On site visitation in Flanders by VLHORA (PHE) and VLIR (univ.)– in Holland by independent and private organisations, on behalf of the NVAO

These organisations are called VIB: Organisation for visiting and judging HE-programs and are recognised by NVAO

The Universities in Holland use the same VBI – the Professional HEIs can use one of four VBIs (they all have their own way of going through the process)

Visitation panel is composed by the VBI


24

In Higher Professional Education no international members in the panel (except of course for international programs taught in English)

VBI is responsible for the report about the results of the visitation

the NVAO takes the final decision about a positive or negative accreditation, for every individual program

In Flanders all programs are visited in the same period (opportunity for benchmarking) – in Holland the HEI is deciding when the visitation will take place (in a period of six years)


25

There are plans for changing the system in 2010 or 2011 (as well in Flanders as the Netherlands: No accreditation for every program but for the

HEI as a whole (less time, less money There will still be audits on a program level,

every few years (depending on status of HEI) More time for ‘improving’ the programs, if the

visitation proofs that the quality is not okay


26

Thank you for your attention!

27

http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lassohttp://www.nvao.net/


http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso

http://www.nvao.net/

quality a ssurance and accreditation in higher education

Documents

quality assurance decisions

quality assessment

external qa criteria

national review

internal assessment

followup procedures

periodic review of programmes

adequate peer review