Quality Assurance in the EHEA (Bologna Process)

1
Quality Assurancein the EHEA (Bologna Process)
Prof. Andreas G. Orphanides President, Board of
EQAR Rector, European University
Cyprus Vice-President, EURASHE

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

2

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 process
5. How the Register is used at national level

3
Quality in the Bologna Process
Primary responsibility of HE institutions for
quality
Founding of EQAR
Cooperation of QA agencies and HE institutions
European Standards and Guidelines
European cooperation in quality assurance
Register of QA agencies
E4 Group
1999 Bologna
2001 Prague
2003 Berlin
2005 Bergen
2007 London
2008
4
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

5
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 ExternalQA agencies
Part 2 ExternalQA of HEIs
Part 1 InternalQA by HEIs
6
ESG part 1 overview

• ESG for the internal quality assurance within
  institutions
• Policy and procedures for quality assurance
• Approval, monitoring and periodic review of prog.
• Assessment of students
• Quality assurance of teaching staff
• Learning resources and student support
• Information systems
• Public information

7
ESG part 2 overview

• ESG for the external quality assurance of
  insitutions
• Use of internal QA procedures (ESG Part 1)
• Development of external QA processes
• Criteria for decisions
• Processes fit for purpose
• Reporting
• Follow-up procedures
• Periodic reviews
• System-wide analyses

8
ESG part 3 overview

• ESG for external quality assurance agencies
• Use of external QA procedures (ESG Part 2)
• Official status
• Independence
• Activities
• Resources
• Mission statement
• External quality assurance criteria and processes
• Accountability

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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 exercise
• Focus on improvement and continuous enhancement
  rather than only control
• Balance between follow-up and overburdening

13
The European Quality Assurance Register for
Higher Education (EQAR)

• EQARs 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)

14
EQAR main objectives

15
EQAR
Register Committee 11 members in their individual
capacity 5 government observers
Executive Board 4 members (E4)
3 members
Appeals Committee
President Two Vice-Presidents Treasurer
Register Committee chair (ex officio,
non-voting)
2 members each nominated by ENQA, EUA, EURASHE,
ESU 1 member each nominated by Education
International and Business Europe 1 additional
chair elected by the Register Committee 5
government observers
Approval based on nominations
Election on proposal of E4
Election
General Assembly
Founding Members
E4 Group
Social Partners BE and EI
Governmental Members EHEA Governments, CoE, CEPES
16
Overview Inclusion onthe Register

1. self-evaluation produced by the QA agency
2. site visit by independent review team(QA
   professionals, students and academics)
3. external review report (compliance with ESG)
4. application for inclusion on EQAR
5. decision by EQAR Register Committee

17
Criteria and process two-step procedure

• 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)
• 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!

18
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
19
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

20
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)

21
Using the ESG (2)

• ... challenges
• Some teams make overall judgements, others dont
• 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

22
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 arrangements
• provide 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 profile
• Facilitate quality assurance of joint programmes
  involving institutions from several countries

23
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

24

• Thank you for your attention!