1. Quality Assurance in the EHEA (Bologna Process)
Prof. Andreas G. Orphanides
President, Board of EQAR
Rector, European University Cyprus
Vice-President, EURASHE
ASEM Conference
“Quality Assurance and Recognition in Higher Education: Challenges and Prospects”
6-7 December 2010, Mediterranean Beach Hotel, Limassol, Cyprus

2. Quality Assurance in the EHEA (Bologna Process)
European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG)
European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)
Application criteria and process
How the Register is used at national level

3. Quality in the Bologna Process
Primary responsibility of HE institutions for quality
Cooperation of QA agencies and HE institutions
Founding of EQAR
European Standards and Guidelines
European cooperation in quality assurance
Register of QA agencies
E4 Group
1999
Bologna
2001
Prague
2003
Berlin
2005
Bergen
2007
London
2008

4. European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG)
Common reference points for quality assurance of higher education
To enhance comparability of QA in Europe
To facilitate mutual trust and recognition of QA as well as qualifications
Encompassing the diversity of higher education systems in Europe
Agreed shared principles
No detailed norms
No checklist

5. ESG – development and structure
Developed by the E4 Group
QA agencies (ENQA)
Higher education institutions (EUA, EURASHE)
Students (ESU)
Agreed by the Bologna Process (2005) ministers
Central responsibility of higher education institutions for their quality (see also Berlin Communiqué, 2003)
Part 3:
External QA agencies
Part 2:
External QA of HEIs
Part 1:
Internal QA by HEIs

6. ESG part 1 – overview
ESG for the internal quality assurance within institutions
Policy and procedures for quality assurance
Approval, monitoring and periodic review of prog.
Assessment of students
Quality assurance of teaching staff
Learning resources and student support
Information systems
Public information

7. ESG part 2 – overview
ESG for the external quality assurance of insitutions
Use of internal QA procedures (ESG Part 1)
Development of external QA processes
Criteria for decisions
Processes fit for purpose
Reporting
Follow-up procedures
Periodic reviews
System-wide analyses

8. ESG part 3 – overview ESG for external quality assurance agencies
Use of external QA procedures (ESG Part 2)
Official status
Independence
Activities
Resources
Mission statement
External quality assurance criteria and processes
Accountability

9. ESG 2.5 Reporting Issues frequently addressed:
Standard: “Reports should be published and should be written in a style, which is clear and readily accessible to its intended readership. Any decisions, commendations or recommendations contained in reports should be easy for a reader to find.”
Issues frequently addressed:
Risk of un-accessible reports – different target groups have different needs
Delays in report drafting and publication
Robustness of drafting and adoption procedures

10. ESG 3.6 Independence A lot of structural considerations ...
Standard: “Agencies should be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the conclusions and recommendations made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders.”
A lot of structural considerations ...
Legal status and links/relations codified in laws etc.
... but how independent are operations in practice?
Financing arrangements/control over own resources
Independence as perceived by other relevant actors
Involvement of diverse stakeholders in governance
Recruitment and appointment of external expert teams

11. 2.4 Processes fit for purpose & 3.7 Ext. QA criteria and processes
Processes and criteria should be:
fit for their purpose
pre-defined and publicly available
General expectations (“widely used elements”)
Use of the self-evaluation/site visit/review report/follow-up model
Participation of students and international experts
Training and careful selection of experts
Possibility to appeal decisions

12. 2.6 Follow-up procedures & 2.7 Periodic reviews
Standards: “Quality assurance processes which contain recommendations for action or which require a subsequent action plan, should have a predetermined follow-up procedure which is implemented consistently.” - “External quality assurance of institutions and/or programmes should be undertaken on a cyclical basis. [...]”
External QA is no “once in a lifetime” exercise
Focus on improvement and continuous enhancement rather than only control
Balance between follow-up and overburdening

13. The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR)
“EQAR’s mission is to further the development of the European Higher Education Area by increasing transparency of quality assurance, and thus enhancing trust and confidence in European higher education.”
A register of credible and legitimate QA agencies
Substantial compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) as criterion for inclusion
Evidenced through an external review by independent experts
Open to European and non-European agencies
Stakeholder-managed
Founded (2008) by ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE (E4)

14. EQAR – main objectives Providing information
Identify credible quality assurance agencies, and programmes/institutions they reviewed
Prevent “accreditation mills” from gaining credibility
Enhancing trust
Facilitate recognition of qualifications and periods of study
Thereby support mobility
Promoting a European dimension
Allow HE institutions to choose a suitable QA agency
Fulfil external QA requirements, if national rules permit

15. EQAR Register Committee 11 members in their individual capacity
5 government observers
Executive Board
4 members (E4)
3 members
Appeals Committee
President Two Vice-Presidents Treasurer Register Committee chair (ex officio, non-voting)
2 members each nominated by ENQA, EUA, EURASHE, ESU 1 member each nominated by Education International and Business Europe 1 additional chair elected by the Register Committee 5 government observers
Approval based on nominations
Election on proposal of E4
Election
General Assembly
Founding Members E4 Group
Social Partners BE and EI
Governmental Members EHEA Governments, CoE, CEPES
Secretariat: Director + Administrative assistant

16. Overview: Inclusion on the Register
self-evaluation produced by the QA agency
site visit by independent review team (QA professionals, students and academics)
external review report (compliance with ESG)
application for inclusion on EQAR
decision by EQAR Register Committee

17. Criteria and process: two-step procedure
Requirements for external review process
Review team must reflect stakeholder perspectives
Independence of the review coordinator and team
Clear reference of the review to the ESG (parts 2 and 3)
Substantial compliance with the ESG
Comprehensive judgement, no checklist
No numerical rules such as: “At least x ESG must be in full compliance.”
Yes/no decision, no conditional or provisional inclusion
The second step is the crucial part!

18. Overview: applications for inclusion on EQAR
Autumn 2008
Spring 2009
Summer 2009
Spring 2010
Autumn 2010
Total
Applications 10 4 8 5 31
- accepted 7 3 1 24
- rejected - 2
- withdrawn
- pending

19. Scope of Inclusion on the Register
Geographical
As a rule, expected that ESG are complied with wherever agencies operate, inside or outside EHEA
Anything else would be more complicated and less transparent, and could be misleading
Activities
The ESG are about audit, evaluation, accreditation etc of institutions or programmes - other activities (meta-level, standard setting etc) are not pertinent

20. Using the ESG
The ultimate criterion is substantial compliance with the ESG
No numerical rules, no checklist
But: a comprehensive and holistic judgement
There are a number of challenges:
External review teams use different scales (mostly, all or some of the following: no, partial, substantial or full compliance)

21. Using the ESG (2)
... challenges:
Some teams make overall judgements, others don’t
Some standards might be interpreted differently
National legislation is accepted as “excuse” to different extents
Level of detail in analysing differs significantly
Register Committee has to level out a range of different approaches and interpretations, and might reach a different conclusion than the review team

22. Relevance for higher education institutions
“provide a basis for national authorities to authorise higher education institutions to choose any agency from the Register, if that is compatible with national arrangements
provide a means for higher education institutions to choose between different agencies, if that is compatible with national arrangements”
(E4 Report to Bologna Ministers)
Opportunity for institutions to work with a QA agency that best suits its mission and profile
Facilitate quality assurance of joint programmes involving institutions from several countries

23. How national systems refer to the Register
Austria: plans to allow universities to choose freely from amongst registered agencies for their reviews (proposal)
Denmark: automatic recognition of accreditation by EQAR-registered agencies for ERASMUS Mundus programmes (proposal)
Germany: national regulatory body for QA (Accreditation Council) can ratify decisions of foreign EQAR-registered agencies
Liechtenstein: does not have its own national agency, but the university should choose a registered agency to be externally reviewed (proposal)
Romania: after initial accreditation by national agency, HE institutions can choose from registered agencies freely for external evaluation

24. Thank you for your attention!