S WISS Q UALITY A CCREDITATION S YSTEM IN H IGHER E DUCATION : P ERSPECTIVES FOR S OUTHEAST A SIA By Dr. Alexandre Dormeier Freire, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), Geneva 1 1

Quality assurance and accreditation, the context 1. Consequence of ‘massification’ or democratization of higher education. Globalization => Increasing mobility, etc. 2. HE turned into a commodity: responsiveness of universities increases effectiveness => ‘World Class Universities disease’ 3. What is quality insurance? => attention on quality maintenance and improvement (Vroeijenstijn, 1995) 3.1. It’s not about benchmarking => compliance (with laws) and enhancement, it’s a process 4. What is accreditation? => legitimation of institutions to award degrees, granting quality mark indicating that certain standards are met (Vroeijenstijin, 2005) 2 2

Swiss Academic System Overview 1. Switzerland has 9 Cantonal Universities and 2 Federal technological universitiesUniversity law based on national (federal) legislation, but education is highly decentralized 2. Academic world is homogenous and small (100‘000 HE students), but sharp increase of enrollments in the 1980’s 3. Bologna process appeared in late 1990s 4. Quality assurance & accreditation established lately in

Swiss Quality Accreditation System European Network for Quality Federal State Swiss Parliament Assurance in HE (ENQA), European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) in HE- ‘Code of good practice’ Quality Accreditation Organization (QAO) Cantons = QAA relations Swiss = Political University Universities Accreditation decisions relation Conference = Financial (SUC) and/or political 4 4

Accreditation procedures/1 3 stages for assessment: 1. Minimal norms are elaborated on structures and internal results (objectives definition, internal governance, infrastructures, curriculum, research results, stakeholders’ participation -students association, staff- etc.) 1.1.Self-assessment also requested 2. External experts assess whether minimal norms are reached (university visits) 2.1.Interviews with all stakeholders (students, professors, deans, etc.) 3. Report, verification, validation and position proposed to SUC 4.3 decisions possible: accreditation granted, accreditation subject to conditions, accreditation denied 5 5

Accreditation procedures/2 Some remarks: 1. Accreditation is limited in time (7 years) 2. Focus on teaching evaluation => ‘research results’ is gaining importance 3. SUC takes the final decision of assessment 4. Accreditation is not obligatory, but strong incentive by law suspicions of Cantons to Federal control 5. Accreditation for public and private institutions 6. Both institutes and course are accredited => flexibility 6 6

Perspectives for SEA/1 1. National policies have to be integrated in a regional framework, need to overcome domestic approaches => mutual recognition 2. Potential and dangerous aspects => recognition of antagonistic dimensions: self-determination, need of convergences => Is a ‘general model’ desirable? 3. Common elements in QA & A different national models. Convergence and emerging global consensuses on quality assurance & accreditation (Khawas 1998) 4. But: difficulties to define ‘standards’ of quality => 23 criteria on 3 dimensions of ENQA 5. Transparency of QA & A decisions is key 7 7

Perspectives for SEA/2 6. Independence of the accreditation organization, non-profit oriented, combining national, international expertise => closed-circuit desirable? Monopoly of one QAA agency 7. Bottom-up approach more desirable than a top-down 8. Accreditation organization doesn’t take political decisions separation between strategic and operational levels in QAA procedures 9. No automatic link between QAA results and financial support 10.Check and balances => Switzerland has found a compromise, not perfect though => flexibility 11.Who determines the assessment framework? 8 8

Thank you! > > Website: 9