Title: ENQA seminar: Current trends in the European QA and the situation in Southern Europe
1ENQA seminar Current trends in the European
QAand the situation in Southern Europe
- How to prepare for an external review?
- Kurt Sohm
- Managing director FH Council (FHR)
2Outline
- What is the agency under review?
- History, Framework, FH Council, EQA
- Educational mandate, accreditation decision
- How to prepare for the review?
- Context
- Key features
- Terms of reference and protocol for the review
- Composition expert panel
- Management SE-process
- SE-report
- Schedule of the review
- Lessons learned
5 slides
16 slides
21 slides 30 min
3FH sector at a glance short history
- Short history and is still developing
- the FH Studies Act became effective on 1 October
1993 - the whole sector has been completely new
developed since 1993 - building up of the sector not by transforming
existing educational institutions but by
accrediting new programmes - Actual state of affairs
- the first 10 programmes started 1994/95
- meanwhile 20 institutions offering 243
programmes, 30.000 students, 9.000 annual intake,
about 23.000 graduates - at present 94 of the programmes are offered in
the BaMa-System - the BaMa-reorganisation is nearly completed
(amendment of FH Studies Act 2002)
4FH sector at a glance Framework conditions
- FH Studies Act (lean law with 21 sections) is
based on principles of New Public Management - Deregulation at the state level and regulation by
private sector under state supervision - the state no longer centrally controls and
regulates the Higher Education sector as it
previously did - decentralisation of decision-making process in
order to foster independence, responsibility and
flexibility of the institutions - FH institutions were given greater autonomy to
organize themselves - Providers are with one exception privately
organised - legal person under private law, e.g. companies
with limited liability, associations or public
foundations (e.g. contracts with lecturers are
also concluded under private law) - Public funding (concept of study place
management) - Accreditation by a public authority (FH Council)
5FH sector at a glance FH Council
- Public authority responsible for EQA
- independent decision-making body gt guaranteed by
law - members are not bound by any ministerial
directives - Members appointed by Federal Minister of Science
and Research - four members being appointed on recommendation of
the Advisory Board for Economic and Social
Affairs - for three-year terms, singular re-appointment for
a second, consecutive term is possible - FH Council comprises 16 members
- with academic and professional qualifications
- current president Leopold März, former rector
Vienna University of Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences
6FH sector at a glance External QA
- Close link between initial accreditation,
evaluation and re-accreditation - accreditation refers to programs gt valid for max.
of 5 years - formal and independent decision, indicating that
a program offered meets certain standards - decision on initial accreditation is carried out
by the members of the FH Council themselves - no expertise in the FH Council written expert
opinions are asked for - decision on re-accreditation is based on a
previously conducted evaluation - each re-accreditation requires a new application
and the submission of an evaluation report - Evaluation internal, external, follow-up,
publication - institutional and programme-related evaluation
- Evaluation doesnt state an own methodological
concept but it serves to fulfil the task of
accreditation
7FH sector at a glance Educational mandate
- Practice-oriented education at a higher education
level - focused on the employability of graduates
- curricula are to be designed in such a way that
- the graduates will stand a reasonable chance of
finding a job that matches their qualifications
on higher education level - interrelation between vocational fields of
activity, qualification profile and curriculum
plays a crucial role - Accreditation decision
- programmes are reviewed against the fulfilment of
the educational mandate - Does the submitted concept fulfil its educational
mandate in a reliable and transparent way? - Has the field-specific implementation of the
educational mandate been demonstrated in a
logical, conclusive and valid way?
8Review FH Council context
- FH Council (public authority) is under the
supervision of the Federal Ministry of Science
and Research - supervision is limited to the observance of laws
and regulations - founding member of ENQA (March 2000, Brussels)
- Bergen ministerial meeting May 2005
- Adoption of the European Standards and Guidelines
for Quality Assurance in EHEA (ESG) - ESG are identical with the ENQA criteria for Full
membership - condition of Full membership all Full members
have to undergo an external review at least once
every five years - if not an agency will cease to be a member of
ENQA - Member of the European Consortium for
Accreditation (ECA) - Code of Good Practice (agreed upon 2004)
- agreement of all ECA members to be reviewed by
end of 2007
9Review FH Council context
- Organisation of review
- five-yearly reviews are normally initiated and
coordinated by national authorities - principle of subsidiarity which underpins the ESG
and as part of the national quality assurance
arrangements - limited resources of ENQA to coordinate reviews
- exception no suitable or willing national body
- agencies wishing ot engage ENQA must be able to
justify why a national review is impossible - ENQA reserves the right to decline such a request
- the management of the review must be completely
independent of the agency under review - all parts of the process must be transparent and
easily open to examination by the ENQA board
10Review FH Council context
- Remit of the review
- Two types of nationally coordinated reviews
- sole purpose review (type A) only to fulfil
the periodic review requirement of ENQA
membership - multiple purpose review (type B) review has a
number of purposes, one of which is to fulfil the
periodic review requirement of ENQA membership - Clarification well in advance before the review
starts - Determination in the Terms of reference and
protocol for the review (ToR)
11Review FH Council key features
- Review was coordinated by the Federal Ministry of
Science and Research (national authority) - contact details were communicated to ENQA
- Considered national and international
requirements (type B review) - Panel predominately consisted of international
experts - Close cooperation and consultation with ENQA
- review process should meet the requirements of
ENQA board - ENQA was kept informed of progress throughout the
review - notification to ENQA at an early stage that the
review will be conducted in autumn 2007 - acceptance of ToR by ENQA
- to preserve the integrity of the review the
selection process of panel members was carried
out by the Ministry in consultation with ENQA - Site visit interviews with HE-Institutions,
Association of UAS, Students, Ministry, Council
members, Staff members, Members expert panels,
business/industry (about 60 persons)
12Review FH Council key features
- Purpose and aim, questions to be addressed
- In which way and to what extent does the FH
Council fulfil the tasks stipulated by the
Fachhochschule Studies Act in the area of
external quality assurance? - In which way and to what extent does the FH
Council thereby fulfil the criteria for the ENQA
membership and thus the European Standards and
Guidelines? - In which way and to what extent does the FH
Council comply with the ECA Code of Good
Practice? - Involvement of stakeholders
- the final SE-report was submitted to the relevant
stakeholders by the Ministry (institutions and
students) for statement - the statements were communicated to the review
panel - all relevant documents were made accessible on a
restricted part of our website
13Review FH Council key features
- Basic attitude towards the self-evaluation (SE)
- organised as a project with a clearly defined
schedule - adhered to the principles of self-criticism,
objectiveness and openness - structured within the seven criteria of ENQA
membership - description of the actual situation
- identification of strengths and weaknesses
- proposals for improvement
- SE-report is to present in an understandable
manner in which way the FH Council fulfils - its tasks of external quality assurance as
stipulated by the Fachhochschule Studies Act - the criteria for the ENQA membership and thus the
European Standards and Guidelines as well as the
requirements of the ECA Code of Good Practice
14Review FH Council terms of reference (ToR)
- Drafted well before the process started in
consultation between Ministry, FH Council and
Conference of FH institutions - Table of contents
- Summary
- Background and Context
- Legal Basis of the FH Council
- National Context
- International Context
- Purpose and Aim of the Review
- Steps of the the Review Procedure
- Nomination and appointment members of the expert
panel - Self-evaluation of the FH Council
- External Review by an expert panel
- Drawing up the Evaluation Report
- Follow-up Procedure and Publication of the Report
- Schedule of the Review
15Review FH Council composition expert panel
- Compostion of expert panel
- one national expert well familiar with the
Austrian higher education system - nominated and appointed directly by the ministry
- two international experts from organisations that
are responsible for external quality assurance - nominated by ENQA and appointed by the ministry
- one international expert from a higher-education
institution - nominated by ENQA in consultation with EURASHE
- one international expert with students
experience - nominated by ENQA in consultation with ESU
- one assistant (not to be in a state of dependence
to the Council) - nominated by the chair of the panel which has to
come from an ENQA member agency - Ministry prepares the panel in an appropriate
manner
16Review FH Council members expert panel
- Members
- Jon Haakstad, Chair, Norwegian National Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education (NOKUT) - Mark Fredericks, Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie
Organisation (NVAO) - Manfred Prisching, national expert, University of
Graz, Institute of Sociology - Bert Hoogewijs, Rector, University College Ghent
- Vanja Ivoevic, student member, ESU, Croatia
- Agnes Leinweber, secretary, German Accreditation
Council - Language
- Review was made in German (and English)
- international experts with good oral and written
command of German language
17Review FH Council management SE-process
- responsibility managing director (K. Sohm)
- drafting the descriptive parts of the SE-report
- ensuring a broad involvement of staff members and
Council members especially in terms of discussing
the strengths/weaknesses analysis and areas for
improvement - observance of time schedule
- chairing the meetings with staff and Council
members - revising the draft report after the meetings
- preparing the workshops and meetings with the
self-evaluation working group of the FH Council - consultation with the ministry
- final wording of descriptive parts,
strenths/weaknesses, areas for improvement
18Review FH Council SE-report
- Table of contents
- Preliminary remarks
- Aims principles, composition expert panel,
description SE-process - Introduction
- Demonstration HE sector in Austria and national
EQA system general description FH sector
important key features FH sector - The FH Council and the 7 ENQA criteria for
membership - Activities Official status Resources Mission
statement Independence External QA criteria and
processes Accountability procedures - Integration contents of ESG, ENQA criteria, CGP
ECA under the headings of the 7 ENQA criteria for
membership - Description tasks FH Council according to FH
Studies Act, analysis of strengths and
weaknesses, areas for improvement - Appendix index of abbreviations, annexes,
additional documents at the site-visit,
statements of stakeholders - report 80 pages, appendix 200 pages
19Review FH Council SE-report (example
independence)
- ENQA Regulations 4.7
- 4.7 A Full member should be independent to the
extent both that it has autonomous responsibility
for its operations and that the conclusions and
recommendations made in its reports cannot be
influenced by third parties such as higher
education institutions, ministries or other
stakeholders. The member will need to demonstrate
its independence through measures, such as - its operational independence from higher
education institutions and governments is
guaranteed in official documentation (e.g.
instruments of governance or legislative acts) - the definition and operation of its procedures
and methods, the nomination and appointment of
external experts and the determination of the
outcomes of its quality assurance processes are
undertaken autonomously and independently from
governments, higher education institutions, and
organs of political influence - while relevant stakeholders in higher education,
particularly students/learners, are consulted in
the course of quality assurance processes, the
final outcomes of the quality assurance processes
remain the responsibility of the member. - European Standards and Guidelines 3.6
- 3.6 Independence 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. - ECA, Code of Good Practice 3
- 3. Must be sufficiently independent from
government, from higher education institutions as
well as from business, industry and professional
associations.
20Review FH Council Panel draft report
- Site visit 16 19 September 2007
- Expert panel draft report
- submitted to the Ministry and forwarded to the FH
Council only for factual verification on 10
October 2007 - deadline for statement 24 October 2007
- Statement FH Council
- 10 pages
- not only factual verification
- but also clarification on misunderstandings
related to important contents of the draft report - request for further justification of essential
findings - Final report expected on mid November 2007
21(No Transcript)
22(No Transcript)
23Lessons learned
- division of labour between project management
SE-process and responsibility as regards content - national expert who is familiar with the national
context - self evaluation was very fruitful and valuable
- discussion of strengths, weaknesses and areas for
improvement - strong incentive to systematically reflect on the
situation - we placed a lot of weight in the production of
the report - its all about self-critical reflexivity
- broad involvement of staff and Council members
(no one-person-show) - gain of credibility by the stakeholders
- international experts provide very valuable
insights for the review and help to establish its
credibility
24Thank you very much for your attentionhttp//www.
fhr.ac.at/
- Document
- Guidelines for national reviews of ENQA member
agencies - http//www.enqa.eu/