ENQA Debriefing of experts

1

Barcelona 17 March 2009

• ENQA Debriefing of experts
• Agency reviews
• Experiences of review team member

Stefan Delplace, secretary general
EURASHE stefan.delplace_at_eurashe.eu
2
ARACIS Romanian QA Accreditation Agency
2009

• Background/Terms of reference
• Purpose of this review ENQA membership criteria
  met?
• One-time individual experience
• Challenges/Unresolved issues
• Interpretation of ESG
• Conclusions

2
3
Background/Terms of reference
2009

• ARACIS successor of former CNEAA
• Candidate status ENQA membership now terminated
• Review (result) by EUA in 07-08 was not entirely
  compatible with ENQA standards
• Review by ESU (08) focused exclusively on
  student involvement
• Two private agencies formulated accusations
• Legislation on Romanian QA accreditation agency

3
4
Purpose of the review ENQA membership criteria
met?
2009

• Type A review criteria ENQA thus of ESG, by
  ENQA team
• Substantial compliance with ESG if individual
  criteria met?
• Role tasks of agency in context of Romanian HE
  system
• End result to allow national agency to operate in
  accordance with the law

4
5
On this individual experience
2009

• Suitability of ENQA pre-review proceedings
• Abundance of preparatory documentation
• Informal contacts formal settings
• On-site visit to premises
• Room for improvement ESG as an evaluation
  instrument

5
6
CHALLENGES/UNRESOLVED ISSUESFOR REVIEWS OF
AGENCIES
2009

• Mix-up of responsibilities of different parties
  in QA process
• Suitability of legal provisions for QA
• Evidence if a ESG criterion is met?
• Systemic evaluation collection checking of
  such evidence
• How to measure the real long-term impact of QA
  provisions?

6
7
March 2009
On-site interpretation of ESG

• the involvement of SH (also non-academic) is a
  verifiable
• item, but still undervalued (2.2)
• moderating conclusions may be purely formal,
  and an excuse for cumbersome proceedings (2.3)
• fit for purpose not only to apply for
  processes, but also to the overall European
  dimension (2.4)
• Cultural differences determine the degree of
  openness concerning reporting requirements
  (2.5)
• Consistency in follow-up procedures is subject
  to general interpretation of purpose of an
  external review (2.6)
• Wealth of information to be gathered from QA
  reviews its (system-wide) value for all SH is
  underestimated (2.8)

7
8
March 2009
On-site interpretation of ESG

• Programme/institutional reviews require
  different
• mindset proceedings (3.1)
• Grip on non-accredited HEIs not guaranteed by
  existence of official agency (3.2)
• Competitive position of official agency depends
  on its wide range/ scope of QA activities on a
  regular basis (3.3)
• Current available resources no guarantee for
  permanent
• compliance staff development on all levels
  (3.4)
• Mission statement is an action paper towards SH
  (3.5)
• Independence accountability not to be seen
  as conflicting
• principles, but truly complementary (3.6/3.7)

8
9
March 2009
Conclusions

• new lay-out of ESG was overdue
• review proceedings seem adequate
• feedback on HE structure role of QA
• more stakeholders in HE than we are
• aware of?

9