1 / 13

Mapping external quality assurance in Central and Eastern Europe – Where do we go next?

Mapping external quality assurance in Central and Eastern Europe – Where do we go next?. CEEN Workshop, Poznan, 28 May 2005 Stefanie Hofmann. Setting the aim. CEE-Network, Prague 23/24 October 2004

mingan
Download Presentation

Mapping external quality assurance in Central and Eastern Europe – Where do we go next?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mapping external quality assurance in Central and Eastern Europe – Where do we go next? CEEN Workshop, Poznan, 28 May 2005 Stefanie Hofmann

  2. Setting the aim • CEE-Network, Prague 23/24 October 2004 • ENQA, “Bergen Report” (including criteria of good practice for external QA agencies = ENQA membership criteria) • European Ministers, Bergen Communiqué, 21 May 2005 • The European Higher Education Area needs a European Quality Assurance approach… • ENQA standards as a benchmark for CEEN

  3. Survey’s aims and objectives • Mapping activities in CEEN, • in order to prepare for mutual recognition, • setting European standards/ENQA membership criteria as a benchmark. • Identification of a CEEN-specific action plan, • Feedback to ENQA on feasibility and achievability of standards.

  4. Survey Methodology • 2 questionnaires sent out to CEEN member agencies (2003; 2004) • Validation by CEEN member agencies (individually; CEEN Workshop in Prague 2004) • Next step: Publication

  5. Achievements • 2005 Report: 15 CEEN member agencies read in context by the CEE Network itself (ownership!) • Detailed information on practices, principles, procedures • Agreed basis for the planning of targeted initiatives of the CEEN in order to support the accomplishment of the European standards for QA

  6. Selected Findings (1) • In the CEE region, accreditation is the predominant QA approach • The great majority of CEEN agencies assesses the quality of study programmes and accredits these (5.2.4) • The evaluation and accreditation procedures show a high convergence in their content and sequence (5.2.21) • The accreditation decision will always be based on a preceding evaluation (5.2.6)

  7. Selected Findings (2) • In their organisation, structure and decision-making, the CEEN member agencies show a range of possibilities for implementation (ownership, accreditation council’s composition, decision on accreditation, decision on criteria etc.)

  8. Findings - Harmonisation • Obviously, a great number of similarities in organisation and procedures • At the same time, a significant number of differences BUT: • What is a substantial difference?

  9. Burning issues – compliance with European Standards • What will be the adequate funding of my agency, esp. if resources are endangered? • We believe in independence, but what is it? • Quality assurance agencies are to assure their own quality in order to demonstrate accountability. What is a good practice?

  10. To do (1) • Mapping activities in CEEN  • a roadmap towards mutual recognition  • setting European standards/ENQA membership criteria as a benchmark for CEEN  • Identification of a CEEN-specific action plan  (based on the agencies individual action plan) • Feedback to ENQA on feasibility and achievability of standards 

  11. To do (2) • What are the objectives? (1) European Standards (2) Mutual recognition • What are constraints? What are weaknesses? • What do we need to change in the work and/or organisation of our in order to achieve the objective ? • What will be our first step? (action plan and priorities)

  12. Thank for your contributions! (1) Albanian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (AAAHE); Council: Accreditation Council (AC) – Albania (2) Austrian Accreditation Council (AAC) – Austria (3) Austrian Fachhochschule Council (FHR) – Austria (4) Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance (AQA) – Austria (5) National Evaluation and Accreditation Agency at the Council of Ministers (NEAA at the CM); Council: Accreditation Council of NEAA (AC of NEAA) – Bulgaria (6) Accreditation Commission of the Czech Republic (ACCR) – Czech Republic (7) Accreditation, Certification and Quality Assurance Institute (ACQUIN) – Germany (8) Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) – Hungary (9) Higher Education Quality Evaluation Centre (HEQEC); Council: Higher Education Council (accreditation of higher education institutions); Accreditation Commission (accreditation of study programmes) – Latvia (10) Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (CQAHE); Council: Experts’ Council for Quality in Higher Education (regarding programmes) (10a); Council for Assessment of Research and Higher Education Institutions (regarding institutions) (10b) – Lithuania (11) Higher Education Quality Evaluation Agency of the Republic of Macedonia (HEQEA); Council: Board of Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions of the Republic of Macedonia – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (12) University Accreditation Commission (UAC) – Poland (13) National Council for Academic Assessment and Accreditation (NCAAA) – Romania (14) National Accreditation Centre of the Russian Federation (NAC); Council: Accreditation Council of the Ministry of Education – Russian Federation (15) Accreditation Commission of the Slovak Republic (ACSR), Advisory Body of the Government of the Slovak Republic – Slovak Republic

More Related