Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rafael Llavori de Micheo

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Rafael Llavori de Micheo"— Presentation transcript:

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 EHEA
3

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

46

47 Thank you for your attention 47


Download ppt "Rafael Llavori de Micheo"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google