1. 1 ENQA Debriefing of experts Agency reviews Experiences of review team member Stefan Delplace, secretary general EURASHE stefan.delplace@eurashe.eu Barcelona 17 March 2009

2. 2 ARACIS Romanian QA & Accreditation Agency Background/Terms of reference Purpose of this review: ENQA membership criteria met? One-time individual experience Challenges/Unresolved issues Interpretation of ESG Conclusions 2009

3. 3 Background/Terms of reference ARACIS successor of former CNEAA Candidate status ENQA membership now terminated Review (result) by EUA in 07-08 was not entirely compatible with ENQA standards Review by ESU (08): focused exclusively on student involvement Two private agencies formulated accusations Legislation on Romanian QA & accreditation agency 2009

4. 4 Purpose of the review: ENQA membership criteria met? Type A review: criteria ENQA & thus of ESG, by ENQA team Substantial compliance with ESG if individual criteria met ? Role & tasks of agency in context of Romanian HE system End result to allow national agency to operate in accordance with the law 2009

5. 5 On this individual experience Suitability of ENQA pre-review proceedings Abundance of preparatory documentation Informal contacts & formal settings On-site visit to premises Room for improvement : ESG as an evaluation instrument 2009

6. 6 CHALLENGES/UNRESOLVED ISSUES FOR REVIEWS OF AGENCIES Mix-up of responsibilities of different parties in QA process Suitability of legal provisions for QA Evidence if a ESG criterion is met? Systemic evaluation: collection & checking of such evidence How to measure the real & long-term impact of QA provisions? 2009

7. 7 March 2009 On-site interpretation of ESG the involvement of SH (also non-academic) is a verifiable item, but still undervalued (2.2) moderating conclusions may be purely formal, and an excuse for cumbersome proceedings (2.3) fit for purpose not only to apply for processes, but also to the overall European dimension (2.4) Cultural differences determine the degree of openness concerning reporting requirements (2.5) Consistency in follow-up procedures is subject to general interpretation of purpose of an external review (2.6) Wealth of information to be gathered from QA reviews: its (system-wide) value for all SH is underestimated (2.8)

8. 8 March 2009 On-site interpretation of ESG * Programme/institutional reviews require different mindset & proceedings (3.1) Grip on non-accredited HEIs not guaranteed by existence of official agency (3.2) Competitive position of official agency depends on its wide range/ scope of QA activities on a regular basis (3.3) Current available resources no guarantee for permanent compliance; staff development on all levels (3.4) Mission statement is an action paper towards SH (3.5) Independence & accountability not to be seen as conflicting principles, but truly complementary (3.6/3.7)

9. 9 March 2009 Conclusions new lay-out of ESG was overdue review proceedings seem adequate feedback on HE structure & role of QA more stakeholders in HE than we are aware of?