In most European countries, higher education institutions or study programmes are subject to regular external review by a quality assurance agency. The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) is a register of such agencies, listing those that substantially comply with a common set of principles for quality assurance in Europe. These principles are laid down in the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance. The register is web-based and freely accessible for everyone. Read more about EQAR...
Overview
EQAR has been founded by ENQA, ESU, EUA and EURASHE, the European representative bodies of quality assurance agencies, students, universities and other higher education institutions, respectively, to increase the transparency of quality assurance in higher education across Europe. EQAR will publish and manage a register of quality assurance agencies that substantially comply with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) to provide the public with clear and reliable information on quality assurance agencies operating in Europe. The register will be web-based and freely accessible.
The Register is expected to:
* promote student mobility by providing a basis for the increase of trust among higher education institutions;
* reduce opportunities for “accreditation mills” to gain credibility;
* provide a basis for governments 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;
* serve as an instrument to improve the quality of agencies and to promote mutual trust among them.
Criteria
All agencies which comply substantially with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) can be admitted to the Register. Substantial compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines is to be evidenced through an external review by independent experts. Such a review is coordinated either by a national authority or another organisation that is independent from the quality assurance agency under review. Full ENQA membership, being also based on substantial compliance with the ESG, will normally constitute satisfactory evidence for inclusion in the Register. See Application: Requirements for further information.
The EQAR Association
The EQAR Association, an international non-profit association under Belgian law (aisbl/ivzw), has been founded by the E4 organisations to indepently operate the Register of quality assurance agencies. Members of the association are the four founders, ENQA, ESU, EUA and EURASHE, as well as the social partner organisations represented in the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) and European governments that have decided to support the operation of EQAR and get involved in its overall governance.
See also on the blog: EQAR: l’AERES reconnue au niveau européen, La CTI inscrite à EQAR.

Vocational education and training is good for you - The social benefits of VET for individuals. This report investigates the social benefits of initial and continuing vocational education and training (VET) for individuals in Europe. Drawing on data from the European Community household panel, results show that initial VET is associated with positive changes in social outcomes for individuals. These social outcomes are mediated by the institutional setting in which VET takes place. Health benefits were mainly found in egalitarian contexts such as in Finland and Sweden, whereas benefits in terms of civic participation were mainly found in systems that reward participation in civil society, such as in Germany and Denmark. The benefits of continuing VET were found in systems known for their political efforts to improve training and working conditions in the workplace, such as in Scandinavian countries. Overall, the social benefits of VET for individuals materialise in all countries but their nature will change according to the institutional factors supporting the formation of certain types of benefit. Dowload the report Vocational education and training is good for you.
Aims
This project had three aims:
(a) to review different theoretical approaches explaining why a learning experience can benefit individuals, their families and their communities and to apply these theoretical principles to the particular case of vocational education and training (VET);
(b) to locate initial VET (IVET) and continuing VET (CVET) within national contexts of education provision and their relationships with the economy; in so doing, to determine whether these national contexts exhibit characteristics which are desirable for social benefits to be realised;
(c) to test empirically the social benefits of IVET and CVET in Europe, using data from the European community household panel (ECHP).
Conclusions and recommendations
Looking across our results, we can conclude that there are important complementarities between the institutional arrangements of IVET ― and to some extent CVET ― and social benefits achieved by individuals. Strong welfare states complement the realisation of health benefits of IVET. Systems that reward civic participation see more voluntarism in organisations linked to IVET. In policy terms, the returns on investment in IVET are affected by the mix of other institutions present in the countries. Without such institutions there is a need for policy coherence across sectors to raise the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the efforts made in IVET to promote social outcomes for individuals. VET itself cannot generate social outcomes without challenging economic and social inequalities at macro level, and stigma and disadvantage attached to the value of IVET and CVET, which individuals perceive at micro level. Tackling these issues may ensure net positive impact of VET for individuals.
Future research is needed to deepen our understanding of how VET is embedded in the system of social and structural inequalities and how this can limit the generation of social benefits. VET itself can deepen educational inequalities if its value is not recognised both socially and monetarily and if there are strong selection effects (VET education mainly catering for the educational needs of pupils from disadvantaged social backgrounds, as a route to earn a livelihood). Previous research mainly focused on the impact of income inequality on economic growth, crime, civic unrest, health, and well-being: few studies focused on inequalities in education. Our results on the possible links between meso-level institutions and micro-level processes by which IVET relates to social outcomes is just the beginning of this research.

Racine intervient dans le champ de la formation, de l’emploi et des programmes communautaires, notamment le Fonds social européen (FSE). Ses activités reposent sur l'expertise d'une équipe multidisciplinaire de consultants qui a développé depuis plus de 20 ans un vaste réseau de partenaires en France et en Europe. Racine conseille et accompagne les porteurs de projets européens (partenaires sociaux, entreprises, associations, administrations nationales, régionales et locales...). Il renforce la dimension européenne des projets tant sur un plan qualitatif qu'administratif et financier. Enfin, il communique, capitalise et contribue à la généralisation de ces pratiques.
Racine est organisme intermédiaire (OI) pour la mise en œuvre du dispositif  "Actions innovantes transnationales", volet national du FSE 2007-2013. L’appel à projets 2011 sera ouvert le vendredi 24 juin 2011. Consultez les informations sur le sujet dans la rubrique «Transnationalité 2007-2013». Il anime le réseau des organismes intermédiaires chargés de renforcer l'accès aux financements européens des microporteurs de projets associatifs mis en oeuvre dans les régions françaises. Il conçoit et anime des sessions de formation qui reposent notamment sur  sa solide expérience de l’accompagnement au montage et à la gestion administrative et financière des projets cofinancés par le Fonds social européen. Il pilote le consortium "Racine-Publicis-studio SurSud" dont l'objectif est  d'apporter un appui à la communication sur le Fonds social européen en France : rendez-vous  sur le site officiel de la conférence «Innover ensemble pour l’emploi de seniors», organisée par la Délégation générale à l’emploi et à la formation professionnelle fin avril 2011 à Paris, en lien avec la Commission européenne. Jusqu'en 2012, Racine appuie le ministère du Travail et des Affaires sociales tchèque dans la conduite des travaux du "Learning Network" sur laTransnationalité. Racine est partenaire du projet In porté par la mairie de Montevideo, secrétariat permanent du réseau Mercociudades. Ce projet, soutenu par la Commission européenne, réunit également LOCAL/IHEAL-Paris III-Sorbonne nouvelle et la fondation TIAU.

By Marcus Leach. A groundbreaking agreement outlining how the UK and China will work together to boost vocational learning in both countries has been announced. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed during an official visit to Beijing, China, by Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning Minister John Hayes. The MoU will provide the basis for deepening our collaborations on vocational education. The agreement will last for the next three years.
“There are already many examples of very productive collaborations across China with UK awarding organisations, colleges and training providers working together with their Chinese counterparts. This MoU builds on this positive foundation with the aim of developing this relationship even more," the Skills Minister said.
“It will open up a fantastic array of valuable and enriching opportunities for vocational education colleges and other organisations in both the UK and China.
“I am particularly pleased with the Chinese interest in our apprenticeship model. Apprenticeships are at the heart of the British Government’s approach to vocational education.”
The five key areas of activity will be:
- Trials of apprenticeships in China drawing on UK models and expertise
Expanding the mutual recognition of qualifications and vocational education providers.
- Support for institutional partnerships including joint course development and student/teacher exchanges.
- Joint development of e-learning and remote learning facilities.
- Sector specialists from the UK and China working together to develop curriculum material and training resources.
The MoU follows detailed discussions between Ministers in both countries. A UK-China Education Summit took place in November 2010 where Education Secretary Michael Gove signed a broad Partnership Agreement on education, including a commitment to explore deeper ties on vocational education with the Chinese. In June this year, Prime Minister welcomed Chinese Premier Wen and his delegation to the UK for the UK-China Summit. Following his stay in Beijing, John Hayes will visit Hong Kong for two days. He will meet Ministers to discuss the educational reforms in Hong Kong and attend a conference on learning in a globalised world. He will also visit the Hospitality Industry Training and Development Centre and Chinese Cuisine Training Institute of Vocational Training Council.

The NetCu consortium organised a meeting on the 23rd and 24th of June at Universidade Aberta in Lisbon to bring together the research results on 20 networked curricula in Europe.
The analysis was focussed on the essential aspects of networked curricula like management, teaching and learning, didactic tools, technical aspects, mobility, quality assurance and curricula design. The data collected in the past half year on all these examples has shown to be very valuable as they cover many elements and a diversity of approaches that will help the NetCu consortium to come to a rich guide on the added value, the success factors and the way to create new opportunities in this field. The project consortium of NetCu will also look specifically into the support of social media in networked curricula and come with recommendations in direct relation to the goals of each model identified. First results will be presented in the EADTU annual conference in Eskisehir, 3-4 November 2011.

Quality assurance at Dutch research universities concerns research groups as well as degree programmes. Research groups are subject to a research assessment scheme, degree programmes are monitored in an accreditation scheme. Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015. Code of conduct for scientific practice.
Research assessment
Every six years the quality of research institutes and research groups at Dutch research universities is systematically assessed. Universities organise the assessment themselves and appoint an independent international peer-review committee. Next to an overall assessment of an institute, the quality, productivity, viability and relevance of all research groups are evaluated. PhD programmes are also included in this process. In addition to the external evaluation, an internal evaluation of the institutes takes place every three years.
The present research quality assurance system has been in use since the 1990s. Up until 2003, the VSNU had been responsible for organising nation-wide evaluations on discipline level. Since 2003 the universities themselves have organised the research assessments based on the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). In this protocol, established by the VSNU, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), emphasis is placed on the international position of institutes and research groups. The protocol is periodically reviewed by an independent expert committee.
Accreditation
All university degree courses are permanently subjected to internal quality control and external assessment. The current system of external quality assurance started in 2002/3 with the introduction of the bachelor-master structure in the Netherlands. All degree programmes have to be accredited by the Netherlands-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO) to be eligible for recognition and funding by the government. Accredited programmes are listed in the Central Register of Higher Education Programmes (CROHO). Students can only apply for financial support and receive nationally recognised degrees if they enrol in accredited programmes.
Accreditation is granted on the basis of an evaluation report produced once every six years by an external assessment panel. The assessment panel judges the self-evaluation report of the programme under review and carries out on-the-spot inspections. Protocols ensure a transparent, systematic and reliable assessment of programmes in accordance with national and international benchmarks. Failure either to comply with or to meet the standards laid down in these protocols leads to enforced study programme closure. Within the framework of the Bologna process European countries are working towards the mutual recognition of their accreditation decisions.

Description
The EP to Campus programme allows Universities to benefit from the expertise and experience of former Members of the European Parliament who will share their insights into how the EU institutions really work and what are the factors that shape EU decision-making. You will find detailed information about it in the brochure here in the language of your choice: BG /CS/DA/DE/EL/EN/ES/ET/FI /FR/GA/HU/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/RO/SK/SL/SV/TR.
How it works
The initiative to include the participation of former MEPs comes from the University that is organising a conference, a seminar or a tutorial. The University is required to fill in the  application form. The guidelines will help you for this purpose. The FMA will then aim to match the requirements of the institution with FMA members available, using a database which contains details of the areas of expertise of former MEPs. The FMA sends a shortlist of names to the University from which you will make your final pick. The University is always in charge and only you decide on the final candidate. This of course includes the right to reject all of those offered if you are not happy. The database from which we choose these persons is available in the  Speakers' Bureau section and includes a list of those FMA members who are interested in participating in the programme.

The Sustainability of European Universities 21-23 March 2012, Hosted by The University of Warwick, United Kingdom.
In the context of the major changes taking place in European higher education the EUA Annual conference 2012 will: - reach consensus on institutional, national and European strategies and action that can be implemented by individual universities to promote sustainable and successful European universities and address the challenges ahead.

By Ben Wildavsky. “Everybody’s got talent – they’re just talented in different ways!” In contemporary parent-speak, this is the kind of thing a mom or dad might tell a crestfallen fourth-grader who didn’t get the lead in the school play (but perhaps won a Best Tree award instead). This self-esteem-building mentality came to mind the other day when I read about the release of a prototype of U-Multirank. That’s the latest global university ranking to come on the scene, premised on the idea that every university should have the chance to spotlight its own special talent.
Sponsored by the European Commission, the prototype was developed by a consortium led by the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies at the University of Twente and Germany’s Center for Higher Education Development. It uses metrics in five areas – teaching and learning, research, knowledge transfer, international orientation, and regional engagement – to allow users, whether students, universities, or employers, to use their own weightings to rank universities. This build-your-own approach was born of frustration with the poor showing of countries on the European continent in established global rankings.
To give this new system its due, it has the great advantage of being consumer-oriented, focusing on a range of measures that are certainly plausibly related to university excellence. Given longstanding complaints about existing rankings, which certainly have many flaws, there is something appealing about U-Multirank’s approach. It accepts the inevitability of comparisons between institutions, while creating a transparent, multifaceted, user-controlled model that could be called the rankings version of direct democracy.
And yet. Rankings foes often argue that judging different universities is inherently problematic because so many unique factors distinguish them. But most academics in, say, the physics department of a major research university can instantly recite a list of the top departments in the nation — or the world. University presidents, too, have a keen sense of where they stand in the pecking order of institutions with which they compete. So while an employer might want to rank universities based on their graduation rates — an important measure, to be sure — shouldn’t some measure of overall academic excellence also play a role? Similarly, a university might legitimately boast of its wonderful record of regional engagement – yet it might be quite undistinguished in a broader sense.
Here’s another way to look at this. The London Symphony Orchestra is surely one of the best in the world – ranked number four by Gramophone magazine. Yet a critic opposed to the hopeless subjectivity of such assessments might propose an alternative methodology. Under this approach, consumers could be asked to rank the orchestra’s quality based on their views of the relative importance of numerous factors: the prowess of its percussion section, the comfort of its concert-hall seats, the affordability of its tickets, and so forth. But would any of those granular characteristics, while certainly worth knowing about, really tell the broader world something meaningful about its excellence?
I don’t mean to condemn the U-Multirank experiment, which I believe has promise – particularly if its creators can find a way over time to add some kind of AHELO-like measure of student-learning outcomes. A proliferation of thoughfully constructed ranking systems is healthy, it seems to me. But a radically democratic approach to university assessment comes at a price. Consumers may not be the best judges of overall university quality. That’s why the application of thoughtful judgement by rankers has value, particularly as rankings gradually become more sophisticated and robust. If handmade rankings become the preferred method of university assessment, useful and comparable information about overall institutional quality risks being lost in a childish world of prizes for all.
See also on our blog Classement mondial des universités: La Commission européenne confie le projet au consortium Cherpa. A l’issue d’un appel d’offre lancé en novembre 2008 par la commission européenne, un consortium de sept entités européennes s’est vu confier le 2 juin 2009, la mise au point et l'essai de la faisabilité d'un classement multidimensionnel des universités à l'échelle mondiale.