1. Rafael Llavori de Micheo
ECA Seminar
Changing Systems: achievements and new develop,ments in national accreditation systems
The Hague, 9th December 2009
Case study 4: Spain
Rafael Llavori de Micheo
Head of the International Relations Unit
ANECA

2. Contents Adapting the national system to the EHEA
The Spanish case study
The accreditation system
The institutional perspective: AUDIT
Open questions for the future 2

3. 1. Adapting the national system to the EHEA3

4. Universities The Spanish HE system 75 universities
Adapting the HE system to the EHEA
The Spanish HE system
Universities
75 universities
(50 public – 25 private)
Public universities –
Private Universities –
Number of students enrolled

5. Bologna process and quality assurance developments
Adapting the HE system to the EHEA
Bologna process and quality assurance developments
Primary responsibility of HE institutions for quality
Evaluation of EQAR
Cooperation of QA agencies and HE institutions
European cooperation in quality assurance
European Standards and Guidelines
European Register
EQAR
04/2008
E4 Group
1999
Bologna
2001
Prague
2003
Berlin
2005
Bergen
2007
London
2009
Leuven
Louvain-la-Neuve
1998 Reco CE
2006 Reco CE
Source : Colin Tück, E4, B. Curvale

6. Adapting the HE system to the EHEA

7. Changes in the legal framework
Adapting the HE system to the EHEA
Changes in the legal framework
European Higher
Education Area
European Standrads and Guidelines for QA of HE
New Spanish Legal Framework
University Act (December 2001) and its reform (April 2007).
Real Decreto 1044/2003, 1 August, European Degree Supplement
Real Decreto 1125/2003, 5 September, ECTS
Real Decreto 56/2007, 21 January, Postgraduate Official Programmes
Real Decreto 1393/2007, 29 October, New Organisation of Programmes
Real Decreto 1509/2008, 12 de September, Universities, Centres and Degrees Register
CHANGES FOR THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 7

8. 2.
The Spanish case study 8

9. The Spanish HE system: the actors
The Spanish case study
The Spanish HE system: the actors
Ministry of Education
National legal framework: LOMLOU
Programme accreditation
Eval. and Accreditation of Teaching Staff
Regional governments
Regional legal framework
Funding public HEIs
Follow-up and ex-post accreditation
Evaluation of teaching staff (hired)
Universities
Programme offer
Selection of teaching staff
Selection of students

10. The Spanish case study University Council/Reg. Gov.
ANECA/Regional Agencies
Evaluation for accreditation (ANECA)
Follow-up and ex-post accreditation (both)
Teaching staff accreditation (ANECA) and Evaluation of Teaching staff (hired) (both)
Institutional Evaluation practices DOCENTIA y AUDIT
Universities
Internal QA systems
Evaluation of Teaching activity
Selection of teaching staff

11. QA in Spain at the national level
ANECA
Autonomous Communities Agencies
The new legal framework assigns ANECA and the regional agencies a concrete role to be played
RD 1393/2007 establishes that ANECA:
Prepares the procedures
Elaborates the evaluation report for the ex – ante accreditation
Mutual recognition between ANECA and Spanish ENQA full members / EQAR agencies
ANECA and the A.C. agencies
Do the follow-up procedure of the accredited programmes
Elaborate a previous report for re-accreditation
Regions with regional agencies
Regions without regional agencies 11

12. BEFORE EHEA WITHIN EHEA
Adapting the HE system to the EHEA
BEFORE EHEA
WITHIN EHEA
FOCUS
Contents
Competences (LO)
AUTONOMY
Less
Higher
WHO DESIGN THE PROGRAMMES?
The Ministry
University
FRAMEWORK
Catalogue
Register (Flexible)
DEGREES OFFERED
Limited number
Depending on the universities
QUALITY
Important
Key
EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
Voluntary
Mandatory
(Ex-ante, Follow-up and Re-accreditation)

13. 3. The accreditation procedure

14. The accreditation procedure
The programme accreditation process
Design
Programme design
UNIVERSITY
Ex – ante Evaluation
Accreditation
Council Univ.
ANECA
Follow-up
Implementation
UNIVERSItY
ANECA and Reg. Agencies
Accreditation
Fulfilment evaluation
Council Univ.
Regional Government

15. Scope Accrediting body The accreditation procedure
The ex ante programme accreditation focuses on bachelor, master and doctorate level
Apply to all both existing and new programmes.
Accrediting body
The Council of Universities ministerial body, based upon the evaluation report of ANECA
ANECA has set up recognition agreements with regional agencies which fulfil the European standards (external reviewed by ENQA) to take part in the accreditation procedure. 15

16. Academic standards The accreditation procedure
The standards are established in the legal framework that defines the features of the official degrees (Real Decreto 1393/07).
It includes broad references to justify a new programme.
It establishes general descriptors for bachelor, master and doctorate based on the Dublin Descriptors and related to the national QF (MECES).
Academic standards for learning outcomes/specific competences of a particular programme still pending. They are evaluted according to external (international reference points). 16

17. What is evaluated? Verification procedure of a programme/degree:
The accreditation procedure
Verification procedure of a programme/degree:
Descripción del título
Justificación
Objetivos
Acceso y admisión de estudiantes
Planificación de las enseñanzas
Personal académico
Recursos materiales y servicios
Resultados previstos
Sistema de garantía de calidad
Calendario de implantación
What is evaluated?

18. Evaluation committees by field of knowledge (5)
The accreditation procedure
ANECA selects, appoints and trains
Who evaluates?
Evaluation committees by field of knowledge (5)
A chairperson.
A different number of academic peers according to the numer of proposals.
One of the experts belongs to the professional field of the corresponding field of knowledge.
A student.
A secretary from ANECA 18

19. The accreditation procedure
How it is evaluated? 19

20. ANECA’s double contrast
The accreditation procedure
ANECA’s double contrast
Evaluation committees for field of study
Consistency ad intra and inter- committees
Committee for Delivering Reports
The evaluation of the programmes are conducted by the Evalluation Committees for Field of Study. ANECA will submit the evaluation reports to the Council of Universities through the Committee for Delivering Reports. 20

21. How is it the decision made?
The accreditation procedure
ANECA delivers an evaluation report either positive or negative. The report is delivered following two steps:
1. ANECA submits to the university a provisional report including those aspects to be changed to obtain a positive decision proposals for enhancement.
2. ANECA submits a reasoned report to the Council of Universities which is in charge of making the accreditation decision.
Once the programme has been accredited and is included in the Register, ANECA publishes the report in its web-site.
How is it the decision made? 21

22. The procedure consists of the following stages:
The accreditation procedure
The procedure consists of the following stages:
Self-evaluation
External review
Report
The framework of the responsible partner accreditation organisation will be used in the assessment
The totality of the programme will be assessed in accordance with the ECA Principles

23. ECA Principles for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes
The accreditation procedure
ECA Principles for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes

24. 4.
The institutional perspective: AUDIT 24

25. First call for proposals started in September 2007
The institutional perspective: AUDIT
Recognition of Internal Quality Assurance Systems in University Education Programme
The aim of this programme is to enhance and strengthen the development and implementation of Internal Quality Assurance Systems in all center (schools and faculties) that offer university education in Spain. Another objective is to create a procedure for the recognition of such systems.
Agency for the Galician University System Quality (ACSUG)
Agency for the Catalonian University System Quality (AQU)
The purpose of this programme is to made easier for the universities the
In this programme we try to find out the strengths and weaknesses and after we propuse the improvement of the course
Voluntary participation of institutions (faculties/universities)
Open to all Spanish Universities
First call for proposals started in September 2007

26. AUDIT Evaluation Methodology
Focuses on teaching and learning processes
To draw up Criteria and Guidelines for IQAS.
To evaluate HEI’s IQAS design.
To write an Interim and a Final Reports with an advisory function.
QAAs
The purpose of this programme is to made easier for the universities the
In this programme we try to find out the strengths and weaknesses and after we propuse the improvement of the course
To design IQAS, according to Criteria and Guidelines.
To improve their IQAS according to recommendations in the Interim and Final reports.
To implement their IQAS.
HEIs

27. MILESTONES of the AUDIT programme
To orientate in the design of the Internal Quality Assurance Systems (IQAS) at University faculties
Certification of the design of the IQAS
The first time the university apply for Quality label, they must pass an evaluation, by fulfilling certain requirements
Certification of the Implemented Systems

28. MILESTONES of the AUDIT programme
To orientate in the design of the Internal Quality Assurance Systems (IQAS) at University faculties
Agencies
Schools, Faculties/ Universities
Design guidelines 
Compromise
Planning
Diagnosis
Definition and documentation
Design guides
Guidelines
Tools

29. MILESTONES of the AUDIT programme
Verification of the design of the IAQS
Agencies
Schools, Faculties/ Universities
On the basis of the given documentation if verifies the fulfillment of the IAQS requirements
Design verification report
Participation in the accreditation
Improvement and implementation  

30. MILESTONES of the AUDIT programme
Certification of the implemented systems
Agencies
Schools, Faculties/ Universities
Visit to the faculty /university
IAQS certification report
Implementation of IAQS  

31. Focus on stakeholders Internal Quality Assurance System Stakeholders
Examples of aspects considered in the development of quality assurance mechanisms
Students
Selection and admission of students, programme profile, organization and development of the studies, learning support systems, educational outcomes and response of the labour market...
University (in its different levels, i.e. faculty, managers and support staff)
Selection and admission of students, programme profile, organization and development of the studies, learning support systems, faculty and support staff, resources, academic progress, educational outcomes and response of the labour market, information systems...
Employers
Educational offer, programme profile, information quality, response of the labour market…
Public administrations
Educational offer, programme profile, information quality, response of the labour market, education quality and response of the labour market, costs…
Society in general
Supply and demand of education, academic progress and results, response of the labour market…

32. Internal quality assurance guidelines
Internal Quality Assurance System
Internal quality assurance guidelines
Quality policy and objectives
Design of educational offer
Development of the studies and other actions addressed to the students.
Faculty and support staff
Material resources and services
Educational outcomes
Public information

33. Internal Quality Assurance System
1.4. How the HEI manages and improves its physical resources and services
The HEI/university must be provided with mechanisms so it can design, manage and improve its services and physical resources in order for student learning to develop appropriately.
1.5. How the HEI analyses and takes into consideration the outcomes.
The HEI/university must be provided with procedures to ensure that outcomes (learning, graduate employment and the satisfaction of the different interest groups) are measured, analysed and used[1] for decision-making and to enhance the quality of degree programmes.
1.6. How the HEI publishes information on degree programmes.
The HEI must be equipped with mechanisms to ensure that updated information on degrees and programmes is published periodically.

34. Evaluation criteria The review panels AUDIT Evaluation Methodology
Organisation and structure, with a well-defined scope and a meaning that is clear.
All guidelines must be dealt with.
Existence of a comprehensive process map (or similar) describing what the process is, who is involved, and how each process is carried out.
Examples of procedures and indicators that are included in IQAS.
The review panels
The same kind of review panel has been developed by the three QAAs involved in the AUDIT initiative.
Panel members:
Three academic staff members with experience in QA.
An QA expert, staff member of a HEI.
An QA professional.
A staff member of QAA.

35. Faculties and colleges
Participation in AUDIT
Faculties and colleges
QAAs
Universities
ANECA :
ACSUG:
AQU: 43 2 8
53 Spanish Universities are participating in the programme.
Majority of these universities are public.
For most universities, 2 or 3 faculties or colleges.
10 universities have designed an IQAS for all their faculties or colleges.
52 Universities have completed IQAS design.
Source: Rodriguez et al. EQAF 2008

36. Conclusions and Lessons Learned
High degree of involvement by the universities and a high demand from new universities to take part in the 2008 call.
QA experts from different universities and regions of Spain set up workgroups to jointly learn about and draw up improved proposals for their universities.
The AUDIT initiative is contributing to the updating of the QA culture in Spanish universities by encouraging the development of more systematic initiatives for QA.
Universities have designed their IQAS following the criteria and guidelines laid down in AUDIT.
Mutual recognition between agencies is an ongoing process.
Project developed by ANECA to train experts to take part in the evaluations:
Source: Rodriguez et al. EQAF 2008

37. Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Inadequate specification of the stakeholders and how they are involved in identifying the requirements of the IQAS;
Imprecise aims for quality
Incomplete definition of the bodies responsible for the management of quality in faculties and colleges
Lack of specific accountability procedures
Incomplete mechanisms for decision-making in the IQAS, especially in relation to decisions subsequent to self-evaluation processes.
Source: Rodriguez et al. EQAF 2008

38. Conclusions and Lessons Learned
The AUDIT initiative is very useful in HEIs, specially in HEIs without an IQAS or where the internal quality assurance procedures and mechanisms have still not been systematised.
A university’s mission, vision and values should serve as the basis for producing an IQAS, and consideration also needs to be given to strategic issues.
In an initial stage of the development of IQAS, the agencies need to play an advisory role as well as that of external review to encourage the growth of a true quality culture in the universities.
It is necessary to involve university QA experts, professionals and academics to create synergies between those who play key roles in the design, development and enhancement of IQAS.
It is necessary to develop standard procedures between the different peer reviews that are carried out to ensure that results between the various review panels and committees are coherent.
Cooperation by the QAAs in joint projects is beneficial to the management of peer review processes.
Source: Rodriguez et al. EQAF 2008

39. Key Issues To Be Mastered
There are various issues that still need to be addressed:
Is IQAS recognition really an added value for HEIs? and for society?
Can the IQAS guarantee the quality of degree programmes in an external review?
What differences are there between the IQAS design and the usual QA activities in HEIs? Are they similar or not?
What is the real involvement of HEIs policy and decision-makers in a QA system such as AUDIT?
How can a QAA undertake a follow-up process with the engagement of the university? What is the effective role of the QAA in this process?
Source: Rodriguez et al. EQAF 2008

40. 5. Open questions for the future

41. AUDIT programme / follow-up:
Future trends in QA and accreditation in Spain
Open questions for the future1
AUDIT programme / follow-up:
The follow-up procedure of the accreditation procedure will be the key part of the process
The follow-up stems very much to the IQAS of HEIs
AUDIT was crucial to strengthen Q culture within HEIs
The role of the QA Units within HEIs is crucial to support programme and institutional co-ordinators
Information tools generated by the HEIs are at the centre of the procedure
It will result in non-intrusive and non-beurocratic procedures for HEIs
Student protection in terms of the fulfilment of the programme proposal accredited must be assured 41

42. Highly qualified teaching staff
Future trends in QA and accreditation in Spain
Open questions fofr the future 2
On-going approach to quality:
Quality and transparency of the information
Reforms in the training plan focused on :
Student learning
Flexible and student-needs tailored curricular paths
Development towards learning outcomes
Internal quality assurance systems focused in the ESG
Highly qualified teaching staff 42

43. Future trends in QA and accreditation in Spain
Open questions for the future 3
The instituional approach will be therefore tested through the follow-up procedure. It must show adequacy and fitness for purpose.
The meta-evaluation of the procedure will be decisive in a future trethinking of the the whole accreditation procedure 43

44. Multidimensional Transparency tools:
Future trends in QA and accreditation in Spain
Challenges
Multidimensional Transparency tools:
Qrossroads (Proyect ECA)
Rankings
Joint evaluations reducing procedures through standards shared by the agencies avoiding duplication of work.
How interacting with project led by associations of disciplines to define learning outcomes at the cycle level evaluating those programmes by means of labels aside the national QA/accreditation frameworks. 44

45. Priorities for the next decade
Future trends in QA and accreditation in Spain
Priorities for the next decade
Challenges
The joint evaluation reducing the procedures by means of ddefining the standards shared by agencies in order to reduplicate proceses.
How interact with projects led by associations of disciplines to define learning outcomes and giving quality labels apart from the national accreditation framework and agencies. 45

47. Thank you for
your attention 47