Download The External review report of the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher Education (AERES) with regard to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, May 2010.
Introduction
This document is the external review report of the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher Education (AERES). This evaluation was conducted in April 2010 in Paris with a view to determining whether or not the AERES meets the required criteria for being a full member of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).
1.1 Members of the expert panel
The review was conducted in accordance with the procedure described in the Guidelines for National Reviews of ENQA Member Agencies and schedule provided for in the terms of reference (Annex 1 of the Report). It was coordinated by the Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA) in Spain.
The expert panel was composed as follows:
• Prof. Francisco Marcellán – Chairman, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid; former Director of ANECA;
• Prof. Guy Aelterman – Member, Vice-Chancellor, Artesis University College, Antwerp, Belgium, external expert of the ECA;
• Prof. Françoise Bevalot – Member, Professor of Pharmacy at the Université de Franche-Comté, institution adviser to the Ministry of Higher Education and Research;
• Mrs Marta-Norah Sanz – Member, Doctoral Student in the Department of Earth Sciences and Condensed Matter Physics, Universidad de Cantabria;
• Prof. Michel Zink – Member, Professor of French mediaeval literature, Collège de France;
• Prof. Jacques L’Écuyer – Secretary, Higher Education Consultant for various international organizations.
The experts were put forward by ANECA, appointed by ENQA and accepted by the AERES.

5. Conclusion: the AERES’ conformity to the ESG
5.1 Summary of the AERES’ main strengths
- The AERES has a legal form which guarantees its independence in relation to stakeholders.
- The AERES’ mission is clearly defined in its founding Law.
- The AERES has significant human and material resources for undertaking large-scale projects and conducting an impressive number of evaluations within a limited timeframe.
- The AERES has developed Quality Standards enabling it both to regulate its
international operations and its external activities.
- The AERES has a very complete institutional evaluation guide that is likely to provide an effective framework for the self-evaluations of institutions and the work of its experts.
- In the first three years since it was set up, the AERES has shown its ability to learn from its experiences for the sake of continuously improving its evaluation processes.
- The AERES has been able to evaluate – in a professional manner – almost all French higher education institutions, thereby demonstrating its competence and the devotion of its staff.
- The AERES has helped to develop a quality culture within institutions that comes through in the self-evaluation reports some institutions now produce.
- The AERES has set up a remarkable information system that is not at odds with its ability to successfully complete a large number of evaluations.
5.2 Summary of the main points to improve
- The AERES must continue its efforts to develop an evaluation culture within institutions by paying greater attention to the quality of the self-evaluation provided by institutions and to the participation of professors, students and staff in producing it.
- Along the same lines, the AERES should improve its evaluation guide by incorporating criteria focusing specifically on the quality assurance strategy of institutions or by making existing criteria more precise, and ensure that the means provided for in this strategy are put into practice.
- The AERES’ procedures for evaluating bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees should be revised to bring them more into line with the ESG requirements.
- The AERES’ strategic plan has its positive points, but could be improved by the agency specifying the means it intends to implement to achieve its objectives, the persons responsible for this and the timeframes.
- In its strategic plan, the AERES wants to add a greater international dimension to its activities. The panel encourages it to do so, amongst other things by calling more systematically on international experts to carry out its evaluations.
- With the current evaluation cycle, there is a risk that evaluations become routine and ineffective. The panel suggests that the AERES look into the possibility of extending the current cycle.
- Alongside its Council, the members of which are stipulated by Law, it could be in the AERES’ interests to set up an advisory committee with members from various sectors – particularly students and international specialists.
- The AERES has excellent Quality Standards. It would be worth linking these explicitly in with its evaluation guide.
- With this in mind, the panel suggests that the AERES make the criteria in its evaluation guide more precise and ensure that they concern both the effectiveness and existence of quality assurance procedures and policies.
- The AERES’ procedures are promising. They could be improved from several aspects:
o The AERES could send the preliminary version of its evaluation report to institutions to obtain their comments before writing the final report. This stage should not, for all that, change the procedure in place of integrating the institution’s reactions to the final report.
o The AERES could also send the final version of the report to the experts before it is put on its website.
o The question of scores and their publication raised several comments during the site visit. The AERES should perhaps discuss this issue with the main stakeholders – particularly in the research sector. It would also do well to consider the possibility of revising the score when clear improvements have been made.
o The AERES would gain from annually updating its pool of student experts.
- The AERES should set up follow-up procedures to enable it to assess the measures taken following its evaluations quickly.
5.3 Final position
To sum up, following this evaluation, the expert panel concludes that the AERES substantially conforms to the ENQA standards as regards almost all of its criteria. As a result, the panel recommends that the AERES be included as a full member and listed in the ENQA register for a period of five years.
ENQA produces publications dealing with the developments in the European quality assurance. This page contains the latest publications of ENQA in PDF Format. Paper copies can be ordered from the ENQA Secretariat.

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area - 3rd edition (2009) (pdf) (04. Mar. 2005)

ENQA has produced, in co-operation and consultation with its member agencies and the E4 Group (ENQA, EUA, EURASHE and ESIB), this important report that was submitted to the European Ministers of Education meeting in Bergen in May 2005. The report was also presented to the Bologna Follow-Up Group on 1 March 2005.

The 3rd edition's Table of Contents numbering system has been restored for practical reasons; however, the text remains identical to the 2nd edition. The ESG have been translated into 12 languages, as follows (in alphabetical order):

- Albanian (doc) by the Albanian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education

- Albanian (doc) by the Kosovo Accreditation Agency

- Bosnian (pdf) by the European Commission and Council of Europe

- Catalan (pdf) by the Agency for Quality Assurance in the Catalan University System (AQU)

- French (pdf) by the Comité National d'Évaluation of France (now AERES)

- Galician (pdf) by the Agency for Quality Assurance in the Galician University System (ACSUG)

- German (pdf) by the German Rectors' Conference

- Hungarian (pdf) by the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC)

- Romanian (pdf) by the National Alliance of Student Organisations in Romania.

- Russian (pdf) by the National Accreditation Agency of the Russian Federation (NAA)

- Slovak (pdf) by the Slovak Rector's Conference

- Spanish (pdf) by the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain (ANECA)

- Ukrainian (pdf) by the British Council in Ukraine.

Download The External review report of the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher Education (AERES) with regard to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, May 2010.

What is GIQAC? (Global Initiative on Quality Assurance Capacity)
A global initiative to support of capacity building in quality assurance to:
- Improve the efforts of regional networks to build QA capacity of accreditation agencies, tertiary education institutions, and government staff with QA functions;
- Serve as a worldwide focal point for knowledge sharing among regional networks, cross-regional identify synergies, and avoid duplication of efforts;
- Help support regional networks in the development of their work programs and identification of additional resources to ensure their long-term sustainability. 
Why start GIQAC?
Harmonization of credentials and competencies has resulted in a greater focus on quality factors in tertiary education, while the heterogeneity of study programs and country contexts presents a challenge to uniform quality assessments.  Quality assurance practices should meet international norms, yet be appropriate, sustainable, and based on candid consideration of local needs and indigenous capacity.   Regional networks to support QA capacity building in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have recently emerged with the support of DGF resources.  The Arab States are now proposing their own network.  A worldwide initiative such as GIQAC will serve as an umbrella for the disparate regional networks, providing global coherence, a forum for cross-regional knowledge sharing, and the ability to leverage additional resources to make these efforts sustainable. 
Who would be the members of the GIQAC GPP?
General membership would be open to all members of regional networks for quality assurance, to members of INQAAHE, and to other professionals, university officials, and government representatives working on quality assurance in developing countries. The Governing Board would have one representative from each of the regional networks for quality assurance, one representative each from INQAAHE, UNESCO, and several donor agencies. The World Bank would also be a member and chair the Governing Board in the first year of operation. Advisory committees would be convened by the Board on an ad hoc basis. The Secretariat would operate from UNESCO’s Higher Education Division.
What would GIQAC do?
Spearhead global dialogue on QA capacity building and harmonization; facilitate cross-regional knowledge sharing through seminars and forums; identify and disseminate information on good practices; establish and oversee a global clearinghouse of relevant documentation; support the regional networks in their capacity building efforts which include:
- Technical assistance to governments, agencies and universities to design, establish, develop, or reform QA systems, processes, and mutual recognition arrangements;
- General and specialized training for professionals, university faculty, and government officials who conduct QA activities;
- Staff exchanges of QA professionals;
- Analysis and reporting on QA systems.
How much would GIQAC cost?
First year would be about $1,340,000 (consolidating approximately $800,000 in pre-existing DGF commitments to RIACES, AAU, and ANQAHE as sub-grants); the subsequent 2 years would be approximately $800,000 each year.
Who are partners?
Partners include:
Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN)
Red Iberoamericana para la Acreditación de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (RIACES)
African Quality Assurance Network (AfriQAN)
Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE)
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)
UNESCO - Division of Higher Education.

Das Organ für Akkreditierung und Qualitätssicherung der Schweizerischen Hochschulen (OAQ) ist damit beauftragt, die Qualität von Lehre und Forschung an den universitären Hochschulen in der Schweiz zu sichern und zu fördern. Es arbeitet fachlich und operativ unabhängig und stützt sich dabei auf internationale Praktiken und Forschungsdaten. Es organisiert und verwaltet sich im Rahmen seiner Geschäftsordnung selbst und verfügt über ein eigenes Budget.
The OAQ began its work on 1 October 2001. The basis for its mandate is formed by the Federal Law on Financial Aid to Universities (UFG, SR 414.20)and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Universities of 8 October 1999 (UFG), the Intercantonal Convention on Coordinating University Policy of 9 December 1999 and the Cooperation Agreement between the Federal Government and University Cantons on Matters Relating to Universities (SR 414.205) of 14 December 2000.
In accordance with the relevant legal provisions, the OAQ has been charged with assuring and promoting the quality of teaching and research at Swiss academic institutions. To this end the OAQ carries out quality evaluations, establishes guidelines for internal quality assurance at academic institutions and provides the relevant services.
The OAQ fulfils a number of tasks relating to quality assurance and accreditation at the behest of the Swiss University Conference (SUK/CUS), the body responsible for coordinating university-related activities of the federal government and cantons throughout Switzerland. It develops guidelines and quality standards for academic accreditation in Switzerland and carries out accreditation procedures on the basis of Guidelines introduced by the SUK/CUS. It participates in international collaboration in the field of accreditation and quality assurance. It may participate in an advisory function in evaluations carried out by the universities on their own responsibility and organize evaluations of specific disciplines in consultation with the Rectors' Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS).
The OAQ carries out quality evaluations on behalf of the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) under the qualifying procedure for financial support stipulated by the Federal Law on Financial Aid to Universities and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Universities. The qualifying procedure stipulated by the UFG requires quality audits at all cantonal universities to be carried out every four years which focus on the quality assurance systems operated by the universities.

The Office of the Executive Director: Quality Assurance is responsible for:
1. Coordination of quality assurance and local stakeholder management
Education White Paper 3 (reference: Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education) assigns responsibility for coordinating quality assurance in higher education to the HEQC. The organisation is therefore required to facilitate a common approach to quality assurance in collaboration with the other bodies concerned, such as professional councils and sector education and training authorities (SETAs); and to ensure that duplication of quality assurance activities in higher education is avoided. This can involve sharing information and quality assurance systems, and in some instances entering into formal agreements or memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with other bodies whose scope of practice in quality assurance in higher education overlaps with that of the HEQC. The Executive Director's office also manages relations with local stakeholders including higher education institutions and their associations, government departments and the business and student fraternity.
2. International relations
The HEQC recognises that its work must be informed by international debates on developments in quality assurance in higher education, and that the organisation can contribute significantly to such debates. Relationships with quality assurance agencies in the African continent and internationally are key to the HEQC's achieving this objective. For this reason, the organisation has over the past five years established Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in India, the Namibian Qualifications Authority (NQA) and the Tertiary Education Council (TEC) in Botswana. The HEQC will continue to establish relationships with quality agencies internationally, sharing information with countries entering the discourse of quality assurance for the first time, and participating in a coordinated fashion in international debates on higher education.
3. Delegation of stipulated quality assurance functions to higher education institutions
The HEQC is responsible for evaluating and reporting on the effectiveness of the quality management systems of higher education institutions in relation to assessment, short courses, certification arrangements, and recognition of prior learning (RPL). Rather than evaluate each of these areas on an ongoing basis at each institution, the HEQC has developed a framework and criteria on the basis of which quality assurance responsibility for these areas can be delegated to those higher education institutions which can demonstrate that they have in place effective quality management systems. Previously, evaluating these areas was part of the HEQC's institutional audit system. In the case of all institutions that have been audited, and those that are being audited in 2008, decisions about which areas can be delegated will be based on their audit reports and improvement plans. To determine the extent to which it can delegate these areas to the remaining institutions, the HEQC will draw on information in its possession and/or will request further information.
4. The Higher Education Quality Committee Information System (HEQCIS)
One of the responsibilities of the HEQC is to collect from its accredited providers data on student enrolment and achievement, in the format prescribed by the HEQC in consultation with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). The HEQC then submits this data to SAQA for inclusion in the National Learners' Records Database (NLRD). The HEQCIS is the system developed by the HEQC to enable this data to be collected. Data from public providers does not form part of the HEQCIS as this is sent directly by these institutions to the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). After being processed by the Department's Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS), it is submitted to SAQA. HEQCIS can be accessed at: www.che.ac.za/heqcisinfo.

CHEA Initiative White Paper: Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century and the Role of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (August 2011).
BY FRED HARCLEROAD, Introduction
The British magazine, The Economist, probably the leading globally informed publication of this type, in its September 8, 2005 issue, stated that U.S. higher education is “the best in the world.” Although not a “system” and not managed by a central ministry, it is clearly an identifiable enterprise. And its outstanding stature is attributed to its not being organized under the authority of a central government. What holds it together? In part, it is participation by thousands of diverse collegiate institutions and their skilled faculties in the self-regulatory process of accreditation that has developed in the past century. As society needed new, diverse institutions, higher education changed and adapted. Without the police powers of government, and primarily voluntary in nature, it has worked to improve and expand programs and degree offerings. Core values of a democratic society have been maintained, along with autonomy of diverse institutions responding to their varying missions.
Why and how is this condition possible? Two major factors of our republic contribute. They are, first, our unique Constitution, and, second, our unique tripartite system of providing goods and services in our society.
The United States of America, in forming the Constitution after achieving independence from England, developed a combined federal and state system, with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution listing 18 powers delegated to the Congress and Amendment No. X stating, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The term, “education” is not used in the Constitution or The Federalist Papers developed to encourage its passage. Therefore, education in all of its forms, including higher education, is reserved for the states.
As a result, the chartering, establishment and operation of higher education and all institutional education activity is a state power and not a federal power. The federal government has oversight responsibility with regard to the District of Columbia and provides for some specialized institutions in the District. And it provides for institutes to train military forces needed to defend the country and its borders - but all other activity must be state-chartered and required to conform to state law.
The United States has also developed a plan for providing goods and services for its society that is unique. It is tripartite: business and commerce (profit-making and tax-paying); state and federal governments (funded by taxes on business, tariffs and, after the passage of the 16th amendment, taxes on individual incomes) and, finally, thousands of voluntary associations working in the public interest and not responsible, in the main, for paying taxes. Governments are totally responsible for legal matters, consumer protection and exerting the police powers required to enforce the laws and their associated regulations. The voluntary organizations cannot enforce laws or exert the police powers of the government.
Accrediting bodies are among the thousands of voluntary organizations. They are 501(c)3 operations, as is the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a national membership organization charged with national coordination of accreditation. As a result, consumer protection laws against such entities as degree mills, accreditation mills and illegally operating organizations claiming to be educational institutions must be subject to enforcement by government agencies – the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) or state government supervisory agencies...

Possible Future Emphases of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
The current CHEA Initiative to date has identified eight general issues for which to determine action plans for the future activities. Several are comparable to the nine functions outlined by Robert Glidden to the Congress in 1997, including advocacy for accreditation, relations with federal and state governments and relations with accrediting associations (such as recognition). International quality assurance as an additional key CHEA activity has been underway for many years and very successfully. Accountability has been a board policy effort for several years, with some success. Attention to the institutions with profit as a major objective has been limited. As a consequence, it is appropriate to suggest some specific activities that CHEA can consider for future action.
The CHEA Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance, with its publications, is one of the organization’s most effective services. A number of possible studies are suggested that the Institute could carry out in future years and possibly affect future improvements in some CHEA recognition responsibilities:
1) Inside Accreditation, dated June 14, 2010, on the feasibility of “Selling Accreditation” lists three possible standards and five practices that accrediting bodies could include in their approval process when a currently accredited college is sold. A study of current written standards and actual practices would be useful in this future area of consideration.
2) A current public concern is that peer review includes definite conflict of interest. A potentially valuable study could involve contact with a statistically useful sample of the peer reviewers on site visitation teams during the past three-to-five years to determine their reasons for participating. The tasks are demanding and essentially professional service. The result of such a study could provide information on whether there is actual “conflict of interest.” Include also any data on compensation (usually very low, a token payment).
3) Conflict of interest, if accurately described, involves professional ethics. It would be useful to make a study of existing codes of ethics for those on evaluation teams and review bodies and develop a national code of ethics.
4) Make a study of the standards listed by each regional association to determine if there is a set of common core standards for review and what differences are significant. Determine if practices and review guidelines have a comparable core and explore for process comparability and procedures for visiting teams to follow. Then, examine programmatic comparable data – and try to determine a common data set that all institutions should develop for use on a yearly basis for long range planning and yearly budgeting and fund allocation. Use the common data set for all accreditation self-studies.
5) Make a study of CHEA’s 3,000 member presidents and the ways they use accreditation.
6) Studying learning outcomes is more difficult for overall institutional than for programmatic accreditors. However, it would be useful to make a simple study of these two different types of accrediting and recommend some common core outcome measures that would be useful to recommend to various accrediting bodies.
All of these potential studies could provide vital information publications focusing on best practices in accreditation. In several areas for future efforts over the years, the best thing that CHEA can do is continue the current work. With a limited staff and budget, the current products are very effective. Cooperative publications with a few critical organized groups, such as the State Higher Education Executive Officers organization and the Education Commission of the States, would be a good follow-up to the NCHEMS 2010 analysis of state uses of accreditation. A few findings that many states have laws and operations using accreditation might lead to expanded use. A common suggested legal/regulatory wording could encourage other states to pass such laws and develop such regulations. Particular areas for such action are:
1. Whether accreditation is needed to operate (40 states);
2. Requiring nonpublic institutions to be accredited (21 states);
3. Have CHEA recognition for all states with this requirement;
4. Have accreditation (using CHEA) required for out-of state institutions (44 states);
5. Accreditor must be recognized by CHEA as well as USDE (8 states); and
6. Increase state transfer requiring accreditation (8 states)
Dennis Jones, in a 2002 CHEA report (Different Perspectives on Information About Educational Quality: Implications for the Role of Accreditation), suggested that regional accreditors establish three levels of accredited status (meets minimum requirements, exceeds minimum requirements or far exceeds minimum requirements). Some programmatic accreditors have already moved in this direction. An analysis of the programmatic accreditors varied levels and the attitudes of the regionals could be somewhat controversial but interesting to do in later years.
Since the basic group that developed and continues to support CHEA was, and is, the presidents of 3,000 institutions, the President’s Project remains a valuable activity. Presidents are key members of the CHEA board. It could be useful to have a special part of each conference devoted to their analysis of continuing and future CHEA efforts. An alternative would be to have a special session of the group of presidents that originally voted to establish CHEA, including key association board members and their executive officers.
CHEA is a unique member organization with a continuing problem because bureaucrats in the executive branch of government will continually try to go beyond the Constitution and legislative limits as the money they control to distribute to students for attendance increases. Future efforts must maximize CHEA’s extensive services to the presidents of institutions that were responsible for establishing CHEA and support its funding needs to operate successfully, and is critically important to the needs for quality assurance in the U.S. higher education enterprise in the future. In this way, CHEA can continue as a key factor in the maintenance of the U.S. higher education enterprise as “best in the world.”

Comment déployer un système de management de la qualité dans les organismes de formation.
Publiée en octobre 2010, la norme internationale ISO 29990 spécifie les exigences de base pour les organismes de formation.
Elle vise à améliorer la qualité des services relatifs à la formation et à l'apprentissage en matière de conception, de fourniture, de suivi et d'évaluation de prestations d'éducation.
L'ISO 29990 établit une référence commune pour les parties intéressées par la formation professionnelle (clients, financeurs, état et collectivités, apprenants, entreprises, ...), en promouvant la transparence et en facilitant la comparaison des prestataires de services.
En effet, face à l'extraordinaire variété des normes nationales applicables au domaine de la formation non formelle, l'assurance de la qualité par une solution unique étayée par un consensus international devient un enjeu crucial.
Ce séminaire vous permettra de comprendre les exigences et les bénéfices essentiels de cette norme, et la manière de les satisfaire et les obtenir par la certification.
Les thèmes principaux
- Approche globale de la norme ISO 29990:2010 (Services de formation dans le cadre de l'éducation et de la formation non formelles) : les exigences de base pour les prestataires de services
- Mise en œuvre d'un système de management de la qualité dans un organisme de formation
- Transition d'un système ISO 9001 vers ISO 29990
- Pourquoi adopter l'ISO 29990 ?
- Questions/Réponses 
Les intervenants
François GALINOU, Vice Président ICPF & PSI, Directeur Associé Pedagogic Agency.
Membre de la délégation française à l'ISO TC 232, François GALINOU a participé à la conception de la norme ISO 29990 depuis 2006.
Jérôme TORCHET, Responsable d'audit QSE, Responsable Développement Produit ISO 29990.
Date 15/09/2011. 14h15 - 15h30 : Le séminaire d'une durée de 45 minutes est suivi par une session interactive. Lieu Séminaire en ligne. Email du contact lrqa.france@lrqa.com. Pour vous inscrire à notre séminaire en ligne, cliquez sur "Inscription" et puis sur "Register".

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.

ENQA seminar on Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes, 19 September 2011, Vienna, Austria. This seminar will be held on 19 September 2011 and hosted by the Austrian Accreditation Council (ÖAR). The event will take place at the University of Vienna, Austria.
OBJECTIVES
Joint degree programmes, resulting in a truly trans-European degree, facilitating mobility and attracting students from outside the European Higher Education Area, have been on top of the agenda from the beginning of the Bologna process. They have already been mentioned in the Sorbonne Declaration (1998), and the Ministers of Higher Education involved in the Bologna process raised the issue at most of the ministerial conferences since then. In 2007 and 2009, the implementation of joint programmes was also followed up in the stocktaking exercises.
At the Leuven/Louvain-La-Neuve conference in 2009, ministers emphasised that "joint degrees and programmes […] shall become more common practice". Already in the early days of joint programmes it became clear that they mean a challenge to quality assurance: more than one provider develop and offer a joint programme which is studied at more than one institution in more than one country with different political and legal frameworks and not the least differing quality assurance regimes.
The European quality assurance agencies accepted this challenge and made a great effort in the last years to analyse the specific issues of quality assurance in joint programmes and develop approaches for this specific case. The most important projects were the “Transnational European Evaluation Projects I and II” (TEEP I and II) by ENQA, “Joint Master’s Programmes – Joint Evaluations: A Nordic Challenge” by the Nordic Quality Assurance Network, and the work done by the European Consortium for Accreditation, not the least in the field of mutual recognition. In addition, EUA developed the European Master’s New Evaluation Methodology (EMNEM). Hence, today one can rely on ample experience with quality assurance of joint programmes.
The purpose of this seminar is
- to analyse experience in quality assurance of joint programmes as regards specific issues and methodological approaches, and
- to draft recommendations to the Bologna ministerial conference in Bucharest in April 2012
The seminar will gather 30 participants from ENQA, NOQA, ECA, ENIC-NARIC and the European Commission.
PROGRAMME
The draft programme for the seminar can be found here (pdf).
See also on the blog: ENQA workshop on Quality Assurance and Lifelong Learning, 6th European Quality Assurance Forum, L’AERES, évaluée et reconnue par l’ENQA!

HEFCE has a statutory duty to ensure that the teaching provision it funds with public money is of good quality.
In common with the other UK funding bodies, we discharge this duty by contracting the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to devise and implement quality assurance methods. The QAA is therefore responsible for reviewing the quality of all publicly funded higher education (HE) teaching provision in England on behalf of HEFCE, in both higher education institutions (HEIs) and further education colleges (FECs).
The QAA carries out two methods of quality assurance in England:
* institutional audit in HEIs, including separate collaborative provision audits of large or complex provision. The institutional audit cycle commenced in 2005-06 and will run up to 2010-11.
* Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review (IQER) of HE delivered in FECs. This review method commenced in 2007-08 and will continue up to 2011-12.
With the QAA we are now beginning to consider the review method to be used for HE in FECs after 2011-12. In doing so we have undertaken a formal assessment of the impact it will have on the HE sector in terms of regulatory burden, equality and diversity, and sustainable development.
Sector impact assessment: Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review 2012-13 onwards [Adobe PDF]
The QAA has developed a means of describing academic standards called the Academic Infrastructure, which underpins these quality assurance processes. This sets out clear and explicit standards for HE, for public information, and is a point of reference for other quality assurance processes. The infrastructure includes:
* frameworks for HE qualifications
* subject benchmark statements
* programme specifications
* the code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in HE.
The QAA's role includes providing advice to the Minister for Higher Education when institutions make applications for the grant of taught degree-awarding powers, research degree-awarding powers and university title. Guidance for applicant organisations is available. Further information can be found on the QAA web-site.
Contract with the QAA
HEFCE has an annual contract with the QAA. As well as setting out the institutions to be audited or reviewed in that year, the contract also includes details of the regular information to be provided to HEFCE by the QAA and the standards of conduct expected by the two organisations. Contract for Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [Adobe PDF].
QAA and Europe
The QAA is a member of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). In 2008 it underwent a review to maintain its membership and ascertain that the UK quality assurance systems adhered to the European Standards and Guidelines. For further information on HEFCE's work with the QAA contact Emma Creasey, e-mail e.creasey@hefce.ac.uk, tel 0117 931 7225.