Quality Assurance in 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

Quality Assurance in the EHEA (Bologna Process) European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) Application criteria and process How the Register is used at national level

Quality in the Bologna Process Primary responsibility of HE institutions for quality Cooperation of QA agencies and HE institutions Founding of EQAR 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

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 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

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

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

ESG 2.5 Reporting Issues frequently addressed: 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 A lot of structural considerations ... 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” exercise Focus on improvement and continuous enhancement rather than only control Balance 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 Providing information Identify credible quality assurance agencies, and programmes/institutions they reviewed Prevent “accreditation mills” from gaining credibility Enhancing trust Facilitate recognition of qualifications and periods of study Thereby support mobility Promoting a European dimension Allow HE institutions to choose a suitable QA agency Fulfil external QA requirements, if national rules permit

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 Secretariat: Director + Administrative assistant

Overview: Inclusion on the Register self-evaluation produced by the QA agency site visit by independent review team (QA professionals, students and academics) external review report (compliance with ESG) application for inclusion on EQAR decision by EQAR Register Committee

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!

Overview: applications for inclusion on EQAR Autumn 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Spring 2010 Autumn 2010 Total Applications 10 4 8 5 31 - accepted 7 3 1 24 - rejected - 2 - withdrawn - pending

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 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

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!