Quality Assurance and accreditation In Higher education

1
Quality Assurance andaccreditation In Higher
education

• Golden Sands 16 June 2009
• By
• Magda Kirsch (Educonsult
• Hans Daale (LEIDO)

2
QA and EDUCATIONAL CONVERGENCE

• 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
Berlin 2003

• 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

4
Berlin mandate

• 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

5
European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA)

• 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.

6
Bergen 2005

• 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
European Standards and Guidelines ESG

• Internal quality assurance
• External quality assurance
• External quality assurance agencies

8
ESG for IQA within HEIs (by ENQA)

• 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

9
ESG For EQA within HEIs

• 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.

10
ESG FOR EQA agencies

• 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
LONDON 2007

• 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

12
European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA)

• 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.

13
ENQAR WHY?

• 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?

14
LEUVEN 2009

• 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.

15
Quality Assurance and Accreditation in the
Flemish Community of Belgium and the Netherlands
16
QA -A three-step approach

• Internal quality control, which results in
  self-evaluation
• External visitation, which results in a public
  report
• Accreditation

17
Internal quality control

• Colleges of higher education and universities
  carry out their own internal quality control
  through self-evaluation
• IQC belongs to the autonomy of the HEIs who can
  choose their own system
• HEIs have to write a SER
• This SER and its annexes serve as a basis for the
  in-site visitation.

18
Self-evaluation report

• Format for self-evaluation report provided by
  Council for Higher Education
• Self-evaluation report (SER) is written by the
  HEIs
• Upon completion, the SER and the addenda are
  reviewed by an international team of experts

19
On-site visitation

• 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.

20
On-site visitation (ctd.)

• 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.

21
On-site visitation (ctd.)

• 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.

22
Accreditation

• 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.

23
Accreditation - NVAO

• 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.

24
differences between FLAnders Netherlands

• 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

25
differences between FLAnders Netherlands

• 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)
•  

26
The Future

• 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
•  

27

• Thank you for your attention!

http//www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso http//www.nvao.
net/