Presentation on theme: "TEAM II analysis of responses :. a quick reminder the variants: one agencys procedure, criteria and panel one agencys procedure and criteria – others."— Presentation transcript:
TEAM II analysis of responses :
a quick reminder the variants: one agencys procedure, criteria and panel one agencys procedure and criteria – others panel one agencys procedure, shared panel, new criteria shared procedure and panel -- traditional criteria determined by requirements of a regulated profession to test.. to what extent can others: agree with / accept the judgement use it to make a accreditation decision?
Feedback from agencies, experts and programmes on procedures and criteria challenges.. presumed (at start) and realised (at end) financing strengths and weaknesses; points for improvement Main messages from the pilots and their participants
Feedback from agencies experts and programmes on: determining the criteria and procedure the Self Evaluation Reports assembling a panel and its working the site visit(s) the utility of the criteria in reaching a decision the utility of the ECA principles
Feedback from agencies, experts and programmes on determining the criteria and procedure Key points: there is still quite a lot to be done to find a (simple) single model for the accreditation of JPs there are shared core requirements but also different (often nationally/legally required) specifics
Feedback from agencies, experts and programmes on the Self Evaluation Reports: Key points: more detailed guidance should be provided on what is expected in an SER.. and what is not !!
Feedback from agencies experts and programmes on assembling a panel and its working: Key question: should JP evaluations involve a joint panel ? (for better buy in) Key points: panel induction MUST reduce members baggage how are special needs met ? (e.g. labour market)
Feedback from agencies experts and programmes on the site visit(s) Key questions: if a 2 nd site visit is required should ALL panel attend.. or just those whose expertise is needed to answer remaining questions? TEAM II has worked with consortia of well know HEIs.. what if the Consortia members are less well known?
Feedback from agencies experts and programmes on the utility of the criteria in reaching a decision: Key points: ALL pilots could reach an agreed judgement.. but.. different detailed requirements pose a significant problem for the real accreditation of JPs by single procedure use of all criteria used by all QA agencies – hopeless! might a core + model work ?
Feedback from agencies experts and programmes on the utility of the ECA principles: Key points: ALL agree ECA principles cover the right areas.. but.. divergence of views whether or not more detail is required within them could a set of guidelines on application of the principles in different contexts help ?
Other challenges On political national / international aspects (excluding criteria) there is increasing and persuasive evidence that QA agencies can work well together to effect a rigorous and efficient single evaluation of JPs.. but.. national legal requirements still limit possibilities for wither recognition of the evaluation outcomes
Other challenges on diversity of accreditation requirements (the procedure and criteria) the pilots demonstrate that diversity of requirements may be met in different ways the challenge is to identify which requirements really are essential !! (and not duplicate or gather excess information)
Other challenges Financing It was more expensive in money and time than had been envisaged !! but a single method would still be much cheaper than multiples
Main messages from the pilots and their participants challenges foreseen and realised Key points: lots of detailed challenges foreseen (mainly on differences in required input measures)... but.. ALL of the pilots worked.. in principle
Conclusions the TEAM II pilots used superficially similar procedures but varied in the detail and different criteria but.. ALL were all able to reach accreditations recommendations.. but... not all of the agencies involved would have been able to accept / recommend those decisions because of local requirements.
Feedback from today: How does the national context and legal framework affect the procedure? What elements contribute to an effective and efficient single accreditation procedure? What makes the results of one single procedure accepted by all countries involved?
towards a single model... way(s) forward 1)develop a procedure with criteria (P&C) that meet ALL the needs of everyone !! NO CHANCE !! 2)develop a framework / guidelines on Procedures and criteria n for evaluation of JPs.. PRAGMATIC 3)go back to basics: rethink what is really necessary and sufficient for the specific purposes of QA / accreditation within Bologna.. IDEALISTIC 4)Work towards a modular CORE + approach + develop shared help and co-ordinations resources