1. Pre-school education 2. School education (11 years) 3. Vocational education (2-3 years) 4. Higher education: One step program (5 years, specialist diploma) First Degree ( Candidate’s diploma ) Second Degree ( Doctor’s diploma) 1. Pre-school education 2. School education (11 years) 3. Vocational education (2-3 years) 4. Higher education: One step program (5 years, specialist diploma) First Degree ( Candidate’s diploma ) Second Degree ( Doctor’s diploma)

I. Preparatory, where institutional accreditation process was very technical and luck of contributions from the universities; II. QA System development reflected active participation as from official governmental bodies as well as of academic society; III. Modern Quality Assurance System Development in Georgia, covers not only institutional but program evaluation and actively encourages employers to make system adequate and appropriate to the global market needs. I. Preparatory, where institutional accreditation process was very technical and luck of contributions from the universities; II. QA System development reflected active participation as from official governmental bodies as well as of academic society; III. Modern Quality Assurance System Development in Georgia, covers not only institutional but program evaluation and actively encourages employers to make system adequate and appropriate to the global market needs.

 53 State universities (26 central and 27 regional branches) and 218 private higher educational institutions were operated (total 261);  excessive student number (over ;  more than 3000 academic programs;  corruption in student admission exams;  falsification of study process;  Insufficiency of technical resources;  Registration same academic staff/ professors more than 7 institutions;  outdated law on licensing of HEI and program  suspicious ministry staff in the ministry and unclear procedures form licensing on HEI.  53 State universities (26 central and 27 regional branches) and 218 private higher educational institutions were operated (total 261);  excessive student number (over ;  more than 3000 academic programs;  corruption in student admission exams;  falsification of study process;  Insufficiency of technical resources;  Registration same academic staff/ professors more than 7 institutions;  outdated law on licensing of HEI and program  suspicious ministry staff in the ministry and unclear procedures form licensing on HEI.

 The first institutional accreditation of HEIs became the duty of Accreditation and Licensing department at the Ministry of Education and Science;  Board of HE Accreditation (previously counted 29 members, reappointed by the minister and became smaller- 13 members);  MOES stopped licensing process until 2005 (changed the Law on Licensing during this period);  Developed institutional accreditation standards, indicators and procedures related to the existed problems;  Selected and trained issue related experts;  Defined the formula to calculate number of places for each HEI the Unified National Exams.  The first institutional accreditation of HEIs became the duty of Accreditation and Licensing department at the Ministry of Education and Science;  Board of HE Accreditation (previously counted 29 members, reappointed by the minister and became smaller- 13 members);  MOES stopped licensing process until 2005 (changed the Law on Licensing during this period);  Developed institutional accreditation standards, indicators and procedures related to the existed problems;  Selected and trained issue related experts;  Defined the formula to calculate number of places for each HEI the Unified National Exams.

 Get the state sample accreditation certificate;  Receiving students on the basis of Unified National Exams,  State voucher for students enrolled in state and private HEI;  Accredited university students were released from the military services;  The first institutional accreditation was covered from government;  Institutions were granted institutional accreditation for the period of two years;  The state recognized those diplomas which were issued only by the accredited Higher Educational Establishment after 2007;  Enrolled students in non-accredited institutions during academic years were issued valid, state recognized diplomas.  Defined the fixed, total number and enrolment number for each year.  Get the state sample accreditation certificate;  Receiving students on the basis of Unified National Exams,  State voucher for students enrolled in state and private HEI;  Accredited university students were released from the military services;  The first institutional accreditation was covered from government;  Institutions were granted institutional accreditation for the period of two years;  The state recognized those diplomas which were issued only by the accredited Higher Educational Establishment after 2007;  Enrolled students in non-accredited institutions during academic years were issued valid, state recognized diplomas.  Defined the fixed, total number and enrolment number for each year.

 227 Higher Educational Institutions applied within the fixed dates for the accreditation, and 20 more after the deadline;  In total 247 institutions examined the self-study documents;  Based on site visit reports, 110 institutions were awarded and 117 institutions were refused;  48% of institutions have received accreditation, out of which 32% were public institutions and 68%- private.  As for the non-accredited institutions: 17% were public and 83% - private.  68% of accredited institutions were situated in Tbilisi, 32% – in regional centers of Georgia.  In the total number of slots was equal to In students were enrolled through the Unified National Exams.  227 Higher Educational Institutions applied within the fixed dates for the accreditation, and 20 more after the deadline;  In total 247 institutions examined the self-study documents;  Based on site visit reports, 110 institutions were awarded and 117 institutions were refused;  48% of institutions have received accreditation, out of which 32% were public institutions and 68%- private.  As for the non-accredited institutions: 17% were public and 83% - private.  68% of accredited institutions were situated in Tbilisi, 32% – in regional centers of Georgia.  In the total number of slots was equal to In students were enrolled through the Unified National Exams.

 Time limit for preparation;  Absence of the real self-evaluation process inside the universities;  Quality of experts and evaluation reports;  Absence of procedure of the experts approval from the university side;  Ignore of the program evaluation component among criteria;  Lack of university representatives among the evaluators.  Time limit for preparation;  Absence of the real self-evaluation process inside the universities;  Quality of experts and evaluation reports;  Absence of procedure of the experts approval from the university side;  Ignore of the program evaluation component among criteria;  Lack of university representatives among the evaluators.

 From 2005 Georgia Government joined Bologna process in Bergen;  From 2006 April National Education Accreditation Center (NEAC) was established;  NEAC Associated New Board with its 9 members has operated since 19 July 2006;  The New Procedures, standards and indicators also revised formula for calculation of places were defined;  institutional Accreditation fees payment regulation;  Additional cohort of experts were selected and trained under the law and bylaws;  The Center developed peer –evaluation and self –evaluation handbooks;  With participation of selected experts the Code of Experts Ethic were developed and signed form the center and experts’ sides.  From 2005 Georgia Government joined Bologna process in Bergen;  From 2006 April National Education Accreditation Center (NEAC) was established;  NEAC Associated New Board with its 9 members has operated since 19 July 2006;  The New Procedures, standards and indicators also revised formula for calculation of places were defined;  institutional Accreditation fees payment regulation;  Additional cohort of experts were selected and trained under the law and bylaws;  The Center developed peer –evaluation and self –evaluation handbooks;  With participation of selected experts the Code of Experts Ethic were developed and signed form the center and experts’ sides.

 the principles, criteria and regulations of conducting the accreditation process;  the legal basis of accreditation and individual administrative-legal documents issued by NEAC;  In analyzing the self-evaluation reports;  Accreditation visits, leadership and team work principles;  Interviewing;  In assessing the results of the accreditation visits;  In composing the accreditation peer-review report.  the principles, criteria and regulations of conducting the accreditation process;  the legal basis of accreditation and individual administrative-legal documents issued by NEAC;  In analyzing the self-evaluation reports;  Accreditation visits, leadership and team work principles;  Interviewing;  In assessing the results of the accreditation visits;  In composing the accreditation peer-review report.

 147 Higher Educational Institutions applied during 2006 and 2007;  There was no limits and deadliness for application;  The self-study documents were comprehensive and well developed in overall;  Based on peer-evaluation reports reviewed by the Council during two years;  62 institutions were awarded and 82 institutions were refused;  17 were public institutions and 45 – private one.  75 % of accredited institutions were situated in Tbilisi,25% – in regional centers of Georgia.  In 2007 and 2008 average number of slots form students was equal to  The National Register for Student and Academic staff were initiated by NEAC and updated annually. The register became one of the tools for student control, voucher transfer control, student mobility control and academic personal registration control.  147 Higher Educational Institutions applied during 2006 and 2007;  There was no limits and deadliness for application;  The self-study documents were comprehensive and well developed in overall;  Based on peer-evaluation reports reviewed by the Council during two years;  62 institutions were awarded and 82 institutions were refused;  17 were public institutions and 45 – private one.  75 % of accredited institutions were situated in Tbilisi,25% – in regional centers of Georgia.  In 2007 and 2008 average number of slots form students was equal to  The National Register for Student and Academic staff were initiated by NEAC and updated annually. The register became one of the tools for student control, voucher transfer control, student mobility control and academic personal registration control.

 Limited time for evaluation visits at the universities;  Not adequate level for expertise from the side experts;  Difficulties to write adequate peer review reports;  Large number of courts against council decisions (27);  Expert status became unpopular because of participation in courts;  Fees for accreditation was not adequate – too low;  Management of the process was very difficult because of number of applicant and time limits;  Accreditation results and cutting numbers of universities resulted big political pressure from the different politicians and lobbing state representatives and government ;  Large number of discovered falsified documents on students enrollments at State Technical University and Batumi State University, Gori state other sate and private initiations causes the failed in inst. Accreditation and during a year there was not students enrolment at STU.  After the seconded accreditation term in 2007 I was injured from “unknown” person at my own apartment.  Limited time for evaluation visits at the universities;  Not adequate level for expertise from the side experts;  Difficulties to write adequate peer review reports;  Large number of courts against council decisions (27);  Expert status became unpopular because of participation in courts;  Fees for accreditation was not adequate – too low;  Management of the process was very difficult because of number of applicant and time limits;  Accreditation results and cutting numbers of universities resulted big political pressure from the different politicians and lobbing state representatives and government ;  Large number of discovered falsified documents on students enrollments at State Technical University and Batumi State University, Gori state other sate and private initiations causes the failed in inst. Accreditation and during a year there was not students enrolment at STU.  After the seconded accreditation term in 2007 I was injured from “unknown” person at my own apartment.

NEAC (from 2010 year the Center was renamed as “National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement” - NCEQE) planned to achieve several important objectives for the ; Changes in the Law on Higher Education unified these two regulations into one –Authorization and responsible body for it became and NCEQE from 2010 year; Also three types of HEI were defined: a) University b) Educational Institution and c) College. The status for the HEIs is defined based on the programs levels implemented at the institutions; New Law of Georgia on Development of Quality of Education; Higher Education Qualification Framework of Georgia, NEAC (from 2010 year the Center was renamed as “National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement” - NCEQE) planned to achieve several important objectives for the ; Changes in the Law on Higher Education unified these two regulations into one –Authorization and responsible body for it became and NCEQE from 2010 year; Also three types of HEI were defined: a) University b) Educational Institution and c) College. The status for the HEIs is defined based on the programs levels implemented at the institutions; New Law of Georgia on Development of Quality of Education; Higher Education Qualification Framework of Georgia, 2011.

includes reporting sections according the program accreditation standards: a) the goals of an educational program, learning outcomes and the compatibility of the program; b) teaching methodology and organization, adequate to program mastering evaluation; c) student performance, individual work with them; d) provision with teaching resources; e) potential to develop the quality of teaching; f) specific features of the accreditation of regulated and doctoral educational programs. includes reporting sections according the program accreditation standards: a) the goals of an educational program, learning outcomes and the compatibility of the program; b) teaching methodology and organization, adequate to program mastering evaluation; c) student performance, individual work with them; d) provision with teaching resources; e) potential to develop the quality of teaching; f) specific features of the accreditation of regulated and doctoral educational programs.

First, the Center needs to meet organizational development standards and examine self-evaluation. The center needs to meet its’ institutional standards and to be eligible for joining international, European Quality Assurance Associations and European Register. Second, the state should encourage professional associations to be involved in the HE program quality evaluation. Third, Involve international QA experts in the program evaluation process and institute the program accreditation not as funding condition but award for prestige and Excellency. Forth, revise selection criteria for council and experts, foreseeing acceptance of members from broader academic and scientific society. Finally, revise the rule on determination cost for authorization and program accreditation to make it relevant to the services and real expanses. Now it is too expensive for smaller universities and inadequately cheaper for bigger one First, the Center needs to meet organizational development standards and examine self-evaluation. The center needs to meet its’ institutional standards and to be eligible for joining international, European Quality Assurance Associations and European Register. Second, the state should encourage professional associations to be involved in the HE program quality evaluation. Third, Involve international QA experts in the program evaluation process and institute the program accreditation not as funding condition but award for prestige and Excellency. Forth, revise selection criteria for council and experts, foreseeing acceptance of members from broader academic and scientific society. Finally, revise the rule on determination cost for authorization and program accreditation to make it relevant to the services and real expanses. Now it is too expensive for smaller universities and inadequately cheaper for bigger one