1. QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ESTONIA ACCREDITATION OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES AND INSTITUTIONS TIIT LAASBERG

2. MAIN AIMS OF ACCREDITATION IN ESTONIA Program and institutional accreditation Quality improvement – periodical self-evaluation and improvement according to findings and expert’s recommendations Quality control – bad out International comparision – international experts Information provision – publication of results Recognition - state recognized diplomas

3. Experts (103) by countries in 2006 SELECTION PRINCIPLES

4. HE ACCREDITATION CENTER (Staff 3 person) Arranges accreditation of universities and their curricula in the country HE QUALITY ASSESSMENT COUNCIL (12 members) Makes accreditation decisions based on expert evaluation reports NO LEGAL LINK BETWEEN THEM

5. HOW TO AVOID THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS? The council member representing institution under the accreditation does not vote

6. EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (ESG) FOR EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCIES AND EUROPEAN REGISTER To be in the Register all standards has to be fulfilled 3.6. Independence – most problematic standard for Estonia Standard: Agencies should be independent to the extent both that they have autonomous responsibility for their operations and that the judgements made in their reports cannot be influenced by third parties such as higher education institutions, ministries or other stakeholders.

7. § 121. Accreditation results (1) Accreditation results shall be approved by a directive of the Minister of Education and Research on the proposal of the Higher Education Quality Assessment Council. The Minister of Education and Research has the right to reject the proposal of the Higher Education Quality Assessment Council by a reasoned directive and to submit the proposal to the Higher Education Quality Assessment Council to be reviewed for a second time. After the second review, the Minister of Education and Research shall approve the accreditation results on the proposal of the Higher Education Quality Assessment Council or refuse to approve the accreditation results and initiate a new accreditation of the university or its curricula. When a new accreditation is conducted, the members of the evaluation committee which carried out the previous evaluation of the same university or curriculum shall not be members of the temporary evaluation committee.

8. Main problems connected with ESG There does not exist legal link between the Council and the Accreditation Center Council is not independent from the Ministry as accreditation decisions are finally approved by the Minister Procedure for accreditation of universities and institutions of applied higher education and their curricula and requirements for accreditation are finally approved by the Government and not by the Council

9. SOME NOTES ABOUT PROCEDURES

10. ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS – CODE OF GOOD PRACTISE Requirements for accreditation of universities and institutions of applied higher education Requirements for accreditation of curricula of universities Requirements for accreditation of curricula of institutions of applied higher education Standard of HE Professional standards

11. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION OF CURRICULA OF UNIVERSITIES I. MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY II. STUDENTS III. CURRICULA IV. EDUCATIONAL PROCESS V. ORGANISATION OF STUDIES VI. TEACHING STAFF VII. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE IX. RESEARCH CONDITIONS AND LEVEL

12. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION OF HEI (ISO) I. MISSION, GOALS, OBJECTIVES II. PLANNING AND SELF-EVALUATION III. ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT IV. CURRICULA V. IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY VI. STAFF OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VII. STUDENT BODY VIII. TEACHING AIDS AND INFORMATION RESOURCES IX. MATERIAL RESOURCES X. FINANCIAL RESOURCES XI. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION’S RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC XII. ACADEMIC ETHICS XIII. FEEDBACK AND QUALITY ASSUARANCE XIV. RESEARCH: ORGANISATION, DISSEMINATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINAL ACCREDITATION DECISION FULL ACCREDITATION - all requirements are in the category "met" CONDITIONAL ACCREDITATION - 1-2 requirements are in the category "concern", all other "met" NO ACCREDITATION - 3 or more requirements are in the category "concern" or 1 or more requirements are in the category "not met" IF there are significant reasons then the expert team could do its own decision not exactly fixed above.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINAL ACCREDITATION DECISION Requirements (Criteria)MetConcernNot Met 1. Unit develops instruction, plans, policy, and procedures. Responsibilities for each area are formulated clearly. 21 X0 2. Formulated goals are known to relevant academic units. Units collaborate in curriculum implementation. 21 X0 3. A unit should exist, performing systematic analysis of academic quality of curriculum. Program is modified where and when needed. 2 X10 4. A supervisory system exists to monitor the performance of faculty and students. 2 X10 5. Participation and tasks of unit in other subjects are defined clearly. 2 X10 Met 8-10 Concern 5-7 Not Met 0-4 Requirement 1. Management of Educational Policy

15. ACCREDITATION RESULTS All Council accreditation decision and expert’ reports are publically available in the internet Accreditation decisions consist main critical comments and recommendations of experts and their accreditation recommendation

16. PLANNING AND TIME TABLE Accreditations plan for next year – 1 year before Final announcment of accreditations’ order – 6 month before Looking for experts – 6 -3 month before Institution must submit a complete self assessment to the Accreditation Center – 1 month before experts’ visit Final time-table for site visit – 2 weeks before

17. EXPERTS’ SITE VISIT Meeting with management staff of HEI compilers of self-evaluation report students teaching staff graduates employers

18. GOOD PRACTICE One member of the Council is usually nominated to be with expert’ team in their site visit. Main tasks of the member: to assist experts (any additional information and explanations they will need, to solve any problems the experts will have and etc) to study carefully also the self analysis report to give feedback of the experts’ work and conclusions in the Council’s meeting

19. Collection of the feedback From every expert team From every Council member who was with the team From institutions visited (once per year)

20. The most common remarks made by experts about the accreditation process in Estonia in 2006-2007: The guidelines and materials regarding the accreditation process, which are received by experts prior to the evaluation event, are quite adequate; Eventhough most self-evaluation reports contain all the necessary information, their quality varies significantly (some are excellent, some very poor); the quality is different even within the same university. It should be noted that poorly compiled reports may influence the results of the accreditation decision, and therefore the importance of well- compiled self-evaluation reports should be broght to the attention of HEI-s;

21. The most common remarks made by experts about the accreditation process in Estonia in 2006-2007: Regarding the site visits to HEI-s – the time schedule is often very tight and it is often not enough to have only one day for a visit to an institution; The work that experts are expected to do and the fees paid are not in proper balance; It has been expressed that external experts shoud rather focus on quality assessment regarding the level of scientific research, curricula development or study process, which are universal and internationally assessible.

22. The most common remarks made by experts about the accreditation process in Estonia in 2006-2007: Expert teams have been satisfied with the work of the Accreditation Centre in organising the accreditation process, and have found it to be very supportive, helpful, and flexible.

23. COMMENTS OF EXPERTS: Experts from different fields have made almost the same general comments about Estonian higher education

24. CURRICULA: Too intense, no time left for individual work Principles for the compilation of curricula require revision, they are currently based on traditions, ad hoc decisions BA, MA and PhD curricula are not always sufficiently interrelated Not enough research to support teaching

25. Too many small – volume subjects Not enough credit points have been given for research Number of students withdrawing, mostly non- academic reasons, is too high ORGANIZING STUDIES:

26. STUDY PROCESS: Too much emphasizes on lectures, focusing on the knowledge based on facts Number of lectures and study load is too heavy

27. TEACHING STAFF: Shortage of young academics Insufficient number of high-level publications

28. RESOURCES: Laboratories need modern equipment Libraries need more study material, especially scholarly and scientific journals

29. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND FEEDBACK: Internal QA system has to be improved in HEI Poor contacts with graduates Small number of alumni organizations

30. COMPILATION OF SELF-ANALYSIS REPORTS: Requires improvement: self-evaluation report should be based on the SWOT analysis - strengths and projected remedies of the areas analyzed by universities would be clearly outlined

31. THANK YOU