SQUARE Protocol FIN - enic-naric.net Protocol FIN.pdf · 3 Part 1 - Self-evaluation The...

1

SQUARE

Self-evaluationandPeerReviewProtocolMarch2016

ThisprotocoldescribesthequalityassurancemechanismdevelopedwithinSQUARE,

the‘SystemofQualityAssurancefortheRecognitionNetworks’project.

ThistoolisprimarilydesignedtobenefityourENIC-NARICcentre,toimproveyour

centre’spracticefollowingtheinternationalcriteriaoftheLRCandtakinginto

accountyourcentre’sspecificmandate.TheSQUAREqualityassurancemechanism

shouldberegardedasavoluntaryexercise.

Thisdocumentexplainshowtocompletetheself-evaluationandthepeerreview.

TheSQUAREinstrumentsTheSQUAREqualityassurancemechanismisbasedontwoparts:1- A self-evaluation tool for ENIC-NARICs to enable an ENIC-NARIC centre to

objectively assess their recognition practice according to a set of Standards &

GuidelinesthatarebasedontheLisbonRecognitionConvention(LRC), theEAR

manualandthejointENIC-NARICCharter;

2- Apeerreviewmechanism,involvingexternalexpertswhowillreviewyourcentre

basedonyourself-evaluation.

Youshouldconsidertheself-evaluationtobeaninternalinformationgathering,critical

reflectionandanalysisonthepolicies,processesandproceduresofyourcentre,andthe

peerreviewasanexternalassessmentofyourorganization/unitcarriedoutbyexternal

reviewers.Youcouldcomparetheself-evaluationwithaninternalauditandthepeerreview

asanexternalaudit.

Background

The ENIC-NARIC networks base theirwork on several key documents that provide

recommendationsforgoodpractice:

§ TheConventionontheRecognitionofQualificationsconcerningHigherEducation

intheEuropeanRegion(alsoknownasLisbonRecognitionConvention,Councilof

EuropeandUNESCO1997)anditssubsidiarytextsprovidethelegalgroundsfor

recognitionpolicyandpractices.

§ In2004thejointENIC-NARICcharteroutlinedthetermsofoperationoftheENIC-

NARICnetworks including the tasks,activities, resources, levelofexpertiseand

staffrequirements.

§ TheEuropeanAreaforRecognition(EAR)manual,basedontheLisbonRecognition

Convention, outlines good practice for international recognition and provides

clear recommendations for fair recognition of qualifications. Themanual was

2

published in January 2012 and in April 2012 its use was endorsed in the

communiquéoftheBucharestMinisterialEHEAConference.

SQUAREenablesENIC-NARICstoassesstheextenttowhichtheyworkaccordingto

thisinternationallyagreedgoodpractice,andtoimprovetheirpracticewhereneeded.

As such SQUARE contributes to fair and smooth recognition and towards further

cooperationintherecognitionarea.

3

Part1-Self-evaluationTheself-evaluationisdevelopedtoenableENIC-NARICscentrestocriticallyreflecttowhich

extendtheycomplywiththegoodpracticeagreeduponwithinthenetworks,andtoimprove

wherenecessaryandtoenhancewherepossible.

The self-evaluation tool is intended to help analyse your current practice, identify

strengths and weaknesses and suggest the action points needed to improve the

qualityofyourcentre.

Belowyouwillfind:

§ Adescriptionoftheself-evaluationtool;

§ Instructionsonhowtoundertaketheself-evaluation.

Theself-evaluationtoolconsistsof:

§ 6standardsandguidelinestoevaluateyourENIC-NARICcentre;

§ AtemplatetoperformashortSWOTanalysis.

1. Descriptionoftheself-evaluationtoolTheself-evaluationtoolconsistsoftwosteps:

1. Analysisofcompliancewiththestandardsandguidelinesforgoodpractice

Thepurposeistogatherdata,reflectandestablishtheextenttowhichtheexisting

practicesandproceduresofyourcentrecomplywiththestandardsandguidelines

forgoodpractice.ThesestandardsarebasedmainlyontheEARManual,combined

withsomeelementsoftheENIC-NARICCharter.

2. AshortStrengthsWeaknessesOpportunitiesandThreats(SWOT)analysisTheaimoftheSWOTanalysis istoenableyourcentreto indicate itsstrengths,

weaknesses and areas for improvement, and furthermore to formulate action

pointsforthenearfuture.

Dependingonthesituation,yourcentremightopttoonlyperformthefirstpartofthe

self-evaluation, which would result in documentation and verification of your

compliancewiththestandardsandguidelines.Thesecondpart(theSWOTanalysis)

wouldresultinacriticalself-assessmentofyourcentre’srecognitionpractice,leading

toanactionplantoimprovetheperformanceofyourcentre.Itishighlyrecommended

toconductbothpartsoftheself-evaluation.

1.1 FrequencyBoth steps can be completed regularly providing your centre with a robust and

evidence-based internalqualityassurancesystem. Ingeneral it is recommendedto

conducttheself–evaluationevery3to5years.However,thistimeframecanchange

dependingon:

4

§ GoalssetinapreviousSWOTanalysisoractionpointsresultingfromapeer

review.Dependingonthetimeneededtocompletethosegoals,onecandecide

ontheappropriatetimetoconductthenextself-evaluation.

§ Achangeinmandateofthecentre.Ifyourmandateisgoingtochange,you

mightpostponethenextself-evaluationuntilyouhavegainedsufficient

experiencewiththenewprocessesandprocedures.

2. Howtocompletetheself-evaluationtool?

It is advisable to involve variousmembers of your centre into the self-evaluation,

preferablyacombinationofatleastoneemployeewhoisactiveintheprimaryprocess

ofyourcentre(informationprovisionand/ortheevaluationprocess)andatleastone

managerand/ortheheadofoffice.Thetotalnumberofstaffinvolvedintheself-evaluation

should reflect the total number of staff and variety of tasks of your centre. It will take

approximatelyonetothreeworkingdaystocompletethefullself-evaluation.Pleasenotice

thatyoumightneedtospreadthehoursoverseveraldays.

2.1-Step1–Compliancetostandards

Part1oftheself-evaluationconsistsof6standards(annex2), includingatext-boxwith

guidelinesonhowtocomplywitheachofthestandards:

1. Procedures,CriteriaandQualityAssurance

2. Applicant-centredRecognition

3. Quality,LegitimacyandAuthenticity

4. EvaluationToolsandResources

5. TransparencyandInformationProvision

6. (Inter)nationalCooperationandPresentation

Relevanceofthestandardsandlevelofcompliancemaybeinfluencedbytheroleandremit

ofindividualcentres.Therefore,beforedoingtheself-evaluation,thecentresareinvited

tocompletethetypologyform(seeannex1).

2.1.1DescribingcompliancetostandardsYouwillbeaskedanopenquestiontoelaborateonhowyourcentrecomplieswith

eachofthestandards,takingintoaccountthespecificissuesraisedintheguidelines

accompanyingthestandards.Thishasseveralfunctions,it:

§ is the basis uponwhich you rate your overall compliance to the standard (see

followingparagraph);

§ givesyoutheopportunity todescribeyourpractice in relationto thestandard,

whichformsvaluableinputforthesecondpartoftheself-evaluation(theSWOT

analysis);

§ isveryusefultoreviewthisinformationthenexttimeyourcentreisgoingtofillin

theself-evaluationtool,toseewhetheryourpracticehas improvedorwhether

the circumstances under which your centre operates have changed (see also

frequencysectionabove).

5

Forafewstandards,itisexplicitlyrequestedtoprovideevidenceforhowthestandard

ismet.Ifthisisthecasethetextishighlightedinyellow.Pleasenote:

§ Youarestronglyencouragedtoalsoincludethistypeofevidencetosupportyour

description of compliance to other standards. Apart from including physical

examples,thisalsocanalsobedonebyreferringtopractice(s).

§ Especiallywhen you aim to undertake a peer reviewof your centre, providing

evidence is crucial as the peer review team may ask you to support your

statementswiththistypeofevidence.

Thesesupportdocumentsareveryusefulforfuturereferenceandthereforeyouare

advised to keep them on file (hard copy or electronic). Further note that one

document(e.g.acopyofyourstandardevaluationform)maycontainevidencefor

morethanonestandard.

2.1.2RatingcompliancetostandardsAfterdescribingandanalysingyourcompliance,youareexpectedtoindicatetowhich

extentyourcentrecomplieswiththestandardonascalefromonetofour:

1. Nocompliance

Thecentrefailstocomplywiththestandard.

2. Partialcompliance

Some aspects or parts of the standard are met, while others are not. The

interpretationofthestandardiscorrect,butthemannerofimplementationisnot

effectiveenough.

3. Substantialcompliance

Thecentreistoalargeextentinaccordancewiththestandard,thespirit/principle

ofwhichisfollowedinpractice.

4. Fullcompliance

Thecentreactsentirelyinaccordancewiththestandard,anditsimplementation

iseffective.

2.2Step2-SWOTanalysis

Part2oftheevaluationtoolconsistsoftheSWOTanalysis,forwhichatemplateisprovided

(seeannex3).

A SWOT analysis is a structured method to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities,andThreatsofanorganisation.Itinvolvesspecifyingtheobjectivesof

theorganisationandidentifyingtheinternalandexternalfactorsthatarefavourable

andunfavourabletoachievingthoseobjectives.

InaSWOTanalysisyoushouldinvestigatetwothings:

§ isyourcompliancetoaparticularstandardmainlyinfluencedbyinternalor

externalcauses?

§ arethesecauseshelpfulorharmfultoachievingyourobjectives?

6

Bycombiningthesetwoanswers,youwillfindoutifthatparticularstandard

representsastrength,weakness,opportunityorthreatforyourcentre(seetable

below)

Itmaybewisetoprioritizethestandardswhichyoufeelaremostimportantforyour

centrebeforeundertakingtheSWOT,inordertomaketheSWOTanalysisasrelevant

aspossibleandnottooextensive.

Actionpoints

Asa resultof thisanalysisyou formulateactionpoints inorder toconvert internal

weaknessesofyourcentreintostrengths,andexternalthreatsintoopportunities.On

theotherhand,strengthsandopportunitiesthatalreadyexistatpresentmayleadto

actionpointsthatenableyourcentretocapitalizeonthem.

Theanalysisitselfshouldbenolongerthantwopagesandtheactionpointsshouldbe

clearlyformulated.

ExampleofaSWOTanalysisYourcentrehasscoredquitelow(2–partialcompliance)onstandard2(procedures,criteriaandqualityassurance).Sincethisstandardrepresentsan

essentialaspectoftheperformanceofyourcentre,youdecidetogiveitahigh

priorityandtakeittotheSWOTanalysis.

Youconcludethatrecognitioncriteriaarenotconsistentlyappliedbythestaffof

youroffice,becauseyourcentreislackingininternalguidelinesandwritten

procedurestoensureconsistency.Thisisaninternalcausewhichisnotbeneficialtotheperformanceofyourcentre,andthusconstitutesaweakness.Toturnthisweaknessintoastrengthyoudefinethefollowingactionpoint:based

7

ontherecommendationsoftheEARmanualyourcentrewilldevelopapractical

internalguidewithgoodpracticeonhowtodealwithcasesthataretypicalfor

yourowndailypractice.

Anothercentremightconcludethattheirpartialcompliancetostandard2ismainly

duetothefactthatnationallegislationmakesitdifficulttoapplycertaincriteriain

linewiththeLisbonRecognitionConvention.Thatwouldbeanexternalcausewhichis not beneficial and therefore constitutes a threat.Toturnthisthreatintoanopportunitythecentredefinesthefollowingactionpoint:the head of centre will initiate a regular biannual meeting with relevant policy

makersattheMinistryofEducationinwhichrecognitionissueswillbediscussed

withrespecttothecorrectapplicationofinternationallegislation(theLRC)andwith

theaimtobringnationalrecognitionpracticeinlinewiththerelevantactionpoints

ofthemostrecentEHEAMinisterialCommuniqué.

3. Publicationoftheself-evaluationPublicationoftheself-evaluationisondiscretionoftheENIC-NARICcentre.

8

Parttwo–PeerReview

Thispartoutlinesthepurpose,processandoutcomesofthepeerreviewexercise.

1. PurposeofpeerreviewApeerreviewisdefinedasanevaluationofscientific,academic,orprofessional

workbyothersworkinginthesamefield.Apeerreviewcanenhanceandaddvalue

toanENIC-NARIC’sself-evaluationbyintroducinganexternalandinternational

perspective.Inaddition,itcansupportandenhancetheCentre’sdevelopmentand

needsnationallyandinternationally.Forexample,ifitisagreedthatcertainaspects

oftheCentre’sperformanceneedtobeaddressedatpolicylevel,thesuggestionsfor

improvementmadeinthecontextofanexternalreviewcansendaconvincing

messagetotherelevantpolicymakers.

Itshouldbefurtheremphasisedthattheaimofthepeerreviewisnottoverifyor

provecompliancewiththestandards,buttobuildfurtherontheself-evaluationof

theCentreandcontributetotheCentre’scomplianceofitspracticesbyholding

fruitfuldiscussionswithpeersinthespiritofmutualtrustandsupport.

Insummary,peerreviewservesthefollowingpurposes:

§ Ensuringcomprehensiveunderstandingofallthestepsandstandardswithinthe

self-evaluationprocedure;

§ Validatingandenrichingtheoutcomesoftheself-evaluationprocedurethrough

discussionwithpeers;

§ Enhancingthenationalrole,visibilityandstatusoftheCentre;

§ Addinganinternationaldimensiontothequalityassuranceprocedure;

§ Providingfeedbackandrecommendationsregardingcurrentpractices.

2. ThePeerReviewProcessThisprotocolputsforwardaframeworkforthecoordinationofapeerreview

procedure.Itensuresthatbothparties(theENIC-NARICunderreviewandthe

reviewers)haveasharedunderstandingoftheprocessandenablesthemtostay

focussedandmanagetheirtimeeffectively.

2.1Frequency

IngeneralitisrecommendedtocarryoutapeerreviewofyourCentreevery5years.

However,thistimeframecandependonachangeinmandateofthecentreyour

centre.Ifyourmandateisgoingtochange,youmightpostponethenextpeerreview

untilthechangeshavebeenfullyimplemented.Ontheotherhand,ifdiscussions

9

aboutchangingthemandateareon-going,thepeerreviewcangivenewimpetus

andideasfordiscussions.

2.2TheReviewPanel

Thepeerreviewpanelconsistsofthreepersons.Twopersonsfromoneor(if

feasible)twodifferentENIC/NARICcentresandonenationalrecognitionexpertfrom

thecountryunderreview.Thereviewpanelshouldmeetthefollowing

requirements:

§ Thepanelshouldinclude:

o OnepersoninamanagementpositionatanENIC-NARIC;

o AnexperiencedcredentialevaluatorfromanENIC-NARIC;

o Anationalexpertwithagoodunderstandingofthenationalrecognition

structureaswellaswithaninternationaloutlook.

o Atleastoneperson(outofthethreepersonslistedabove)with

experienceinqualityassuranceprocesses.

§ AllpanellistsshouldhaveagoodunderstandingoftheLisbonRecognition

Conventionand/ortheEARmanual;

§ Ifthecountryunderreviewhasspecificpointsitwantstobereviewedfollowing

theSWOTanalysis,itispreferredtoincludeapanellistwithexpertiseinthese

particularfields(inadditiontotheabovementionedcriteria);

§ Theselectedindividualsforthereviewpanelareexpectedtoundertaketheir

taskwithacriticalandconstructiveview;

§ Thereshouldbenoconflictofinterestbetweenthemembersofthepaneland

thecentreunderreview(e.g.thepanelshouldnotincludepersonsworking

withinthecentreunderreview).

2.1.2ConstitutionofthereviewpanelThetwoENIC-NARICexpertsarenominatedbytheirrespectiveHeadofCenters

followingarequestfromthecentreunderreview.Theirresumes/CVsareforwarded

tothecentreunderreviewwhoselectstheexpertsbasedonthecriteriamentioned

above.

Next,thecentreunderreviewproposesanexternalnationalexperttothetwo

selectedENIC-NARICsexperts,whowillcheckwhetherthepersonmeetsthe

abovementionedcriteria.Uponapositiveconfirmation,theexpertjoinsthepeer

reviewteamasanequalmember.Iftheproposedexternalnationalexpertdoesnot

meettherequirements,thecentreneedstopresentanotherexpert.

Oncethereviewpaneliscreated,thepanelchoosesonepersontobeitschair.To

avoidconflictofinterestbetweenthecentreandtheexternalnationalexpert,the

chairhastobearepresentativefromtheENIC-NARIC.Thechair:

§ isthemainpointofcontactofthecentreunderreview;

§ shouldtakecarethatallmembersofthereviewpanelareuptodateaboutthe

communicationbetweenthepanelandthecentreunderreview;

10

§ isresponsibleforcoordinatingthepreparationsofthepeerreviewvisit,aswell

asthepreparationofthefinalreport;

§ shouldhaveexperiencewithqualityassuranceprocesses.

2.3Thesitevisit

Thissectioncontainsguidanceonthekeystepsandtimeframesforconductingasite

visit.

2.3.1PreparingthesitevisitThecentreunderreviewsubmitsthefollowingdocumentstothereviewpanelat

leastonemonthpriortothedateofthesitevisit:

§ aself-evaluationreport(completedusingtheself-evaluationtool1),

§ proposedsitevisitagenda,

§ resumes/roledescriptionsofthestaffmembersinvolvedinthepreparationof

theself-evaluationreport,

§ resumes/roledescriptionsofindividuals(internaland/orexternal)tobe

interviewedbythepeersduringthesitevisit.

Themembersofthereviewpanelacknowledgereceipttothecentreunderreview

andfamiliarisethemselveswiththedocuments.Thereviewpanelholdsa

preparatory(pre-visit)meeting/teleconference:

§ tosharefirstimpressionsregardingthereport;

§ tocheckifthereisanyinformationmissing

§ tocheckifthereisanadditionalneedforbackgroundinformationonthe

educationsystemand/orthelegalframework;

§ todiscusstheprogrammeofthevisitandfinalizetheagenda;

§ toagreeonthemainquestionstoberaisedateachinterview;

§ toidentifywhetherthestaffincludedintheprogrammemeetstheir

expectations,and,ifnot,whichstaffneedstobeadditionallyincludedinand/or

omittedfromtheprogramme;

§ toensuremutualunderstandingoftheobjectivesofthesitevisit.

Ifanyadditionalinformationisrequiredfromthecentre,orachangeinprogramme

isproposed,thereviewpanelnotifiesthecentreinduetimebeforethesitevisit.

2.3.2DuringthesitevisitThesitevisitisconductedaccordingtotheestablishedagenda.Thesitevisitis

supposedtobeconductedduringoneworkingdayandinvolvesthefollowingkey

stages:

1Recommendationsoncompletingtheself-evaluationreportcanbefoundintheintroductionand

instructionstotheself-evaluationtool.

11

Time(max) Action Who

20min(’20) Welcomeandshortintroductionfrom

thecentreunderreview.

§ Peerreviewteam

§ Centreunderreview

15min(’35) Closedmeeting Reviewpanelonly

45min(’80) Meetingwithmanagementofcentre

toclarifypartsofthereportrelatedto

thenationalandinternationalcontext

suchasregulatoryframeworks,policy

mattersandconcernswhichregular

staffcannotchangeorinfluence.

§ Reviewpanel

§ Managementteamof

Centre(includingHeadof

Centre)


’45min(‘140) Meetingwiththemembersofstaffresponsiblefortheself-evaluation

toclarifyanyquestionsandissuesthe

peerreviewpanelhasinregardsto

(partsof)theself-evaluation.

§ Reviewpanel

§ Staffresponsibleforself-

evaluation


45min(‘200) Meetingwithothermembersofstaff

(nooverlapallowedwithprevious

points)

§ Reviewpanel

§ Selectedstaffbyreview

panel

90min(‘290) Lunch:usedtodiscussmorning

outcomes(closedmeeting)

Reviewpanelonly

60min(‘350) Reflectiononfindings,formulationof

feedbackandpreliminaryrecommendationsforimprovement

Reviewpanel(closedmeeting)

30min(‘380) Finalmeetingwithmanagementfor

thereviewpaneltocheckthey

understoodeverythingcorrectlyandto

validatetheirfindingsand

considerations.

§ Reviewpanel

§ Managementteamof

Centre(includingHeadof

Centre)

15min

(‘395)

Closedmeeting Reviewpanelonly

15min

(‘410)

Feedbackmeetingtopresentmain

outcomestothecentre.

§ Reviewpanel

§ StaffENICNARICunder

review

2.3.3Afterthesitevisit

12

Withintwomonthsafterthevisit,thepeerreviewersfinalisetheconclusionsand

recommendationsandforwardthesetotheCentreintheformofapeerreview

report..TheCentrecanreportfactualmistakestothereviewpanelwithtwoweeks.

Iffeedbackisreceived,thereviewpanelfinalisesthereportwithinsixweeks.

3. AfterthePeerReviewAfterreceivingthepeerreviewreport,thecentreunderreviewshouldcarefully

considerandprioritisetherecommendations,formulatingconcretefollowupactions

inordertoaddressthemostpertinentissues.Theactionpointsresultingfromthe

peerreviewcansupplementand/orreinforcetheactionpointsformulated

previouslyduringtheself-evaluationphaseandinternalSWOTanalysis.

Thesubsequentprogressreportshouldprovideanaccountonactionstakenand

impactobserved.Thenextself-evaluationandpeerreviewprocedurescanhelpto

assesswhethertheactionpointshavebeenimplementedproperlyandwhat

improvementshavebeenmadeandaredesirableforthefuture.

13

Annex 1 - Typology

1. ABOUTTHECENTRE

§ Whatisthenameofyourcentre?

[pleaseprovidea)nameinoriginallanguage,b)itsofficialabbreviationandc)Englishtranslation]

§ WhenwasyourInformationcentreestablished?

[pleaseprovidea)month,b)year]§ AreyouanENICorENIC-NARIC?

□ENIC

□ENIC-NARIC

2. LEGALPOWERSANDSTATUS

Legalpowers

§ Theactivitiesofyourcentreare:

□regulatedbynationallaw[pleaseexplainhowandtowhichextent]□definedinamandategiventoyourcentre[pleaseprovideageneralandshortdescription]

§ Arethereanycontractualrequirementstobemetfortheservicesyourcentre

offers?

[pleaseprovidedetails]§ Howindependentisyourcentreinsettingitsownrecognitionpolicies?

[pleaseprovidedetails]

Legalstatus

§ Whatisthelegalstatusofyourcentre?Yourcentreis:

□apublicbody

□partoftheministryresponsibleforhighereducation:

□aseparateunit;

□notaseparateunit2

□accountable/answerabletoanyotherministryorgovernmentdepartment

□independentinstitution

□partofanotherlargerpublicorganization3[pleasedescribe]

□aprivatebody

□notforprofit

2 Functionsassignedtostaffalongsideotherfunctions. 3 E.g.nationalrectors’conference,university,etc.

14


□partofanotherlargerprivatenot-for-profitorganization4[pleasedescribe]

□profit-oriented


□partofanotherlargerprivatefor-profitorganization[pleasedescribe]

3. REMITANDSCOPEOFSERVICES

§ Whatservicesareofferedbyyourcentre?

□Evaluationofinternationalqualifications.

ü Areyourstatements/evaluations:

□legallybinding:

□Recognitionforfurtherstudy

□Recognitionforaccesstoregulatedprofessions

□Recognitionforaccesstonon-regulatedprofessions

□Recognitionforemployment5

□arecommendation/advice:

□Recognitionforfurtherstudy

□Recognitionforaccesstoregulatedprofessions

□Recognitionforaccesstonon-regulatedprofessions

□Recognitionforemployment6

□Informationoninternationalqualifications7

□Statementsoninternationalqualifications8

ü Whichapplicantsarerequestingyourstatements/evaluations?

□Individuals

□Educationinstitutions:

□tertiary

□post-secondarynon-tertiary

□Uppersecondary

□Employers

□Ministries

□Other:[pleasespecify]

□Onlinedatabaseforyourapplicants.

[pleasedescribewhattypeofdatabases:a)whatinformation,b)forwhichtargetgroupandc)iffreeofcharge]

□Providetrainingtothirdparties.

4 E.g.educationalexchangessupportoffice,internationaleducationfoundation,etc. 5

Incaseofformalrequirementstothelevelofaqualificationforaccesstonon-regulatedprofessions.6 Idem. 7 E.g.informationongenericlevel,includinge.g.referencestowebsitesanddatabases.8 Objectiveinformationwithoutevaluation,e.g.accreditationstatus,level,workload,purposeand/orlearning

outcomes,withoutevaluating/comparingthem.

15

[pleasedescribewhatkindoftraining,towhichtargetgroups?]□Research,

□Projects

□Conferencesandseminars

□Publications

□Other:[pleasespecify]

4. STATISTICS

Numberofenquiries

§ Howmanyenquiries,statementsand/orevaluationsdoesyourcentreprocess

annually?9

[pleaseincludenumber]§ Doyouexpectsignificantincreasesordecreasesinthenumbers,orchangesin

thetypeofenquiries/evaluationsintheupcoming3years?10[pleasedescribe]

Humanresources

§ Howmanymembersofstaffareemployedbyyourcentre?

ü Totalnumbersofpersonsandfulltimeequivalent(FTE)ofstaff:[pleaseincludea-numbersandb-fte]

ü Totalpersonsandfteworkingforyourcentre:

- Leadership11:[pleaseincludea)numberandb)fte]

- Policyadvisor(s):[pleaseincludea)numberandb)fte]- Credentialevaluator(s):[pleaseincludea)numberandb)fte]- Administrativestaff

12[pleaseincludea)numberandb)fte]

- Other13:[pleasespecifyanda)includenumberandb)fte]

ü Fromtheabovecategories,howmanypersonsandfteareofficiallyemployed

outsideyourcentre14?[pleaseincludea)numberandb)fte]

Finances

§ Howaretheservicesofyourcentrefinanced?

□Publicfunds

□Privatefunds15

□Both.Pleasespecify:

□%offundsfrompublicfunding:

9 Provideanindication,e.g.basedontheaverageoflast5years. 10 E.g.levelofeducation/qualification,countryoforiginofeducation/qualification,specificaspectsofeducation/qualifications.11 HeadofOrganization,DeputyHead. 12

E.g.Finance,law,PublicRelationsandHumanResources 13 E.g.maintenance,ITsupport,etc 14 E.g.elsewhereinorganization,orcontractedoutsidecentre 15 E.g.throughfeestoindividualsand/orclientsforservicesprovided

16

□structural:[pleasespecify%]

□non-structural16:[pleasespecify%]

□%privatefunding:[pleasespecify%]

16 E.g.tenders

17

Annex 2 - Standards and Guidelines

Standard 1 – Procedures, Criteria and Quality Assurance

The ENIC/NARIC office aligns its recognition criteria and procedures with

establishedgoodpractice,reviewsitsproceduresonaregularbasis,andensuresthatthecriteriaareconsistentlyapplied.

Guidelines

§ RecognitioncriteriaandproceduresareinlinewiththeLisbonRecognition

Conventionandsubsidiarytexts17(especiallythe(revised)Recommendationon

CriteriaandProceduresfortheAssessmentofForeignQualifications),aswellas

withothergoodpracticeascollectedintheEuropeanAreaofRecognition

manual18;

§ Recognitioncriteriaandproceduresarereviewedonaregularbasisinorderto

adapttodevelopmentsintheeducationalfieldandinthefieldofrecognition

(e.g.theintroductionofnewtoolssuchasthenationalqualifications

frameworks).Sourcesofinputforreviewingrecognitionpracticeareapplicants,

clientsandstakeholders;

§ TheENIC/NARICofficehastools(e.g.internalguidelines,writtenproceduresand

internalhandbooksforitsemployees)toensurethequalityofitsprocedures.

Mechanismsareinplacetocheckwhethertheinformationandevaluations

providedtoapplicantsandclientsisappropriateandtoguaranteethat

recognitioncriteriaareappliedconsistentlyfromonecasetothenextandfrom

oneemployeetothenext.

Pleaseprovideyouranswertostandard1inthisbox,usingtheguidelinefollowedbyanindicationoftheoverallcomplianceCOMPLIANCESTANDARD11. □Nocompliance

2. □Partialcompliance

3. □Substantialcompliance

4. □Fullcompliance

17SeeforfullConventionandSubsidiarytexts:enic-naric.net:http://www.enic-naric.net/the-lisbon-

recognition-convention-97.aspx18http://www.enic-naric.net/ear-manual-standards-and-guidelines-on-recognition.aspx

18

Standard 2 - Applicant-centred Recognition

Foreignqualificationsareevaluatedbasedonthepurposeforwhichrecognition

is sought and recognized unless there is a substantial difference. Learning

outcomestakeprecedenceintheevaluation.Analternativeformofrecognition

isgrantedifpossiblewherefullrecognitioncannotbegranted.Thereshouldbea

process in place that enables the applicants to appeal against the recognition

decision.Allpersonsinarefugee(like)situationholdingaqualificationwithoutdocumentationareabletohavetheirqualificationsassessed.

Guidelines

§ The purpose of recognition (academic, occupational/professional) is taken into

account and the qualification is assessed in a flexiblemanner, focusing on the

requirements thatare relevant for thisspecific recognitionpurpose. Ideally the

evaluationorstatementissuedincludesthepurposeofrecognition.

§ Foreignqualificationsarerecognizedunlessthereisasubstantialdifference,by:

o focusingon the fivekeyelements that togethermakeupaqualification

(level,workload,quality,profileandlearningoutcomes)

o comparingtheforeignqualificationtotherelevantnationalqualification

requiredforthedesiredactivity

o determining whether the main requirements relevant for the desired

activity are sufficiently covered by the outcomes of the foreign

qualification.

§ Qualificationsareassessedagainstlearningoutcomesasmuchaspossible.Inthe

absenceofclearstatementsoflearningoutcomes,thefollowingmaybe

consultedasanindicatoroftheoutputofaqualification:purpose,content,rights

attachedandorientation(e.g.research-basedorprofessionallyoriented).

§ Wheresubstantialdifferencesare identified,provideawell-foundedstatement

outlining the substantial differences between the foreign qualification and the

homeoneandseektoofferalternative,partialorconditionalrecognitionofthe

qualification.

§ Theapplicantisinformedaboutthepossibilitytoappealagainsttherecognition

decision.Inthecaseofanappeal,theoriginallyprovidedapplicationtogether

withnewinformation-ifprovidedbytheapplicant-isre-examined.

§ Withinsufficientdocumentation,theassessmentofaqualificationofapersonin

arefugee(like)situationisbasedonabackgroundpaper.Ifdeemednecessary,

interviewsareconductedwithstaffofhighereducationinstitutionsandspecial

examinationsorswornstatementsbeforealegallycompetentauthorityare

arranged.Refugeesareexemptedfrompayinganyassessmentfees.

NB:Pleaseprovideanexampleofhowyourofficereportstheexistenceofsubstantial

differencestoanapplicantoradmissionsofficer.

PleaseincludethisinformationasanAnnextoyourself-evaluationdocument.

19





Standard 3 – Quality, Legitimacy and Authenticity

Thequalityandlegitimacyofaqualificationisassessedbyverifyingthatitisquality

assuredandawardedinaccordancewithapplicableprovisionsandrequirements.

Qualityassuranceandaccreditationsystemsareconsideredassufficientevidence

ofcompliancewithqualitystandards.Theauthenticityofsubmitteddocuments,

incaseofreasonabledoubt,shouldbecheckedusinginternaland, ifnecessary,externalverificationmethods.

Guidelines

§ The status of the awarding institution and programme is checked with the

appropriateauthoritiestoensurethattheprogrammeisofsufficientqualityand

tolinkittoanationaleducationsystem.Thefollowinginformationistakeninto

account:

o which national authorities are responsible for accreditation/quality

assurance;

o whethertheaccreditationisatinstitutionalorprogrammelevel;

o whatistheaccreditationstatusoftheinstitutionand/orprogrammewhen

thequalificationwasawarded.

The informationsuppliedby institutionsand individuals is cross-checkedwith

otherofficialsources.

§ Qualificationsbasedonnon-traditionallearning(suchasflexiblelearningpaths,

recognitionofprior learning (RPL),open/distance learning)are treated in the

same way as traditional qualifications. If qualifications are based on

transnationallearning,additionalprovisionsand/orrequirementsmaybetaken

into account, such as whether transnational providers have permission to

operatebybothreceiving(host)andsending(home)countriesandadhereto

other principles outlined in the legislationof both countries and theCodeof

20

Good Practice for the Provision of Transnational Education19 and in theGuidelinesforQualityProvisioninCross-borderHigherEducation20.

§ Since the procedures for quality assurance and accreditation of joint

programmesarestillbeingdeveloped,acertainamountofflexibilityisexercised

inassessingthestatusof jointprogrammes.IntheEuropeancontext,asingle

accreditation of the entire joint programme is considered to be sufficient

evidence for thequality [ref6=EuropeanApproach forQualityAssuranceof

Joint Programmes (October 2014)]. In other cases, it may be necessary to

investigate thestatusof the institutions involved in the jointprogrammeand

statusofthejointprogrammeinallparticipatingcountries.

§ Incaseaqualificationortheawardinginstitutionisnon-recognised,itmaystill

beusefultoinvestigateitslegitimacybytakingintoaccountanyinformationof

athirdparty’squalityassessment.Ifrelevantinformationisfound,astatement

oranadvicemaybeissuedexplainingthestatusoftheinstitution/qualification

in caseswhere it is confirmed legitimate (butnotofficially recognisedby the

nationaleducationalauthorities).

§ The authenticity of submitted documents is checked using internal and, if

necessary,externalverificationmethods.Theinternalinformationmanagement

couldincludeadatabaseofsamplesofbothgenuineandfraudulentdocuments,

a glossary of common terms, information on the formats and contents of

educationaldocumentationandinternalrecordsofcountry-specificverification

procedures.External informationmanagementmightconsistofcheckingwith

relevant authorities/awarding bodies and requesting and examining original

documentsifnotprovidedinitially.

NB:Pleaseprovideanexampleofhowyourofficeverifiedthequalityandlegitimacy

of a qualification. Exampleswithqualifications,which required additional research

and/orconsiderations,arepreferred.






19SeeforfullConventionandSubsidiarytexts:enic-naric.net:http://www.enic-naric.net/the-lisbon-

recognition-convention-97.aspx20SeeforfullConventionandSubsidiarytexts:enic-naric.net:http://www.enic-naric.net/the-lisbon-

recognition-convention-97.aspx

21

Standard 4 - Evaluation Tools and Resources

Relevant and up to date information on recognition and education systems is

activelycollected.NationalQualificationFrameworkswhereavailableareusedas

atransparencytoolforunderstandingthelevel,learningoutcomesandworkload

offoreignqualifications.Creditsareacceptedasanindicationoftheamountof

studyandthedistributionofgradeswithinaparticulareducationsystemistakenintoaccountwhenrequiredorappropriate.

Guidelines

§ Up-to-dateinformationiscollectedonrelevanttopics,suchaseducationsystems,

qualifications awarded in different countries and their comparability to the

qualificationsinthehomecountry,legislationonrecognition,officiallyrecognised

and accredited institutions, admission requirements, recognition conventions,

bilateralagreements,EUDirectives,andotherrelevantbodies.

§ Adatabaseonpreviousevaluationsismaintained,inordertoensureconsistency

infutureevaluations.

§ National qualifications frameworks are used as a key source of information to

establish the level, generic learning outcomes and workload of foreign

qualifications.Whereanationalqualificationframeworkhasbeenreferencedtoa

metaframework(e.g.EQF),thisisalsotakenintoaccount.

§ Information is collectedon themanydifferent typesof credit systems thatare

used by higher education institutions all over theworld,which are sometimes

limited to an individual institution ormay be applied across different national

educationsystems(e.g.ECTS).Creditsareespeciallyrelevantintherecognitionof

periodsofstudy.

o Foreigncreditsareacceptedforwhattheyrepresentintheirownsystem.

o Credits obtained from various sources (and lacking the framework of a

coherent programme) do not have to be added up and accepted as a

“qualification”.

§ The grades obtained by a studentmay have an impact on the evaluation of a

qualification,especiallyiftheaveragegradeofaqualificationdeterminestheright

ofaccesstofurtherstudyintheeducationsystemwhereitwasawarded.Since

the distribution of grades may vary greatly between education systems, the

statisticaldistributionofgradesinbotheducationsystemsshouldbetakeninto

accountwhenconvertingforeigngrades.

NB:Pleaseprovideexamplesofhowyourofficeusesnationalqualification

frameworks,evaluatesgradesandacknowledgescredit.


22





Standard 5 - Transparency and Information Provision

Informationon the recognitionprocedureandcriteria is clear,accurate,up-to-

dateandreadilyaccessible forapplicants, stakeholdersandthegeneralpublic,andclearinformationonthestatusoftheirapplicationisprovidedtoapplicants.

Guidelines

§ Informationprovidedisaccessible,user-friendly(relevantanddesignedfornon-

expert users), available in a variety of forms (website, by phone and e-mail,

hardcopy brochures), available in at least one international widely spoken

language,regularlyupdatedandfreeofcharge.

§ Theinformationconsistsof:

o a description of the national education system, recognition system,

competent recognition authorities, assessment criteria, roles of the

applicant, ENIC/NARIC and higher education institutions, and the rights

andobligationsofeachoftheparties;

o alistofrequireddocumentsandmanneroftheirsubmission,timeneeded

toprocessanapplication,conditionsandproceduresforappealingagainst

adecision;

o aninventoryoftypicalrecognitioncasesand/oracomparativeoverviewof

othereducationsystems(orqualifications)inrelationtothenationalones.

§ Duringtheapplicationproceduretheapplicantsarekeptinformedonthestatus

oftheirapplicationbyprovidingthemwith:

o anacknowledgementofreceiptoftheapplication,andanindicationofthe

deadline;

o informationonanylackingdocumentation(andhowtoobtainit);

o information on delays or issues encountered while dealing with the

application;

o informationonanyupdatestothestatusoftheapplication.

NB:Pleaseillustrateyouranswerbyprovidingaprint-outoftheEnglishdescription

ofthenationalrecognitionsystemonyourwebsite.


23





Standard 6 - (Inter)national Cooperation and Presentation

TheENIC/NARICofficeactivelycooperateswithnationalandinternational

stakeholdersonrecognitionissuesandprovidesinputinthedevelopmentand

disseminationofnewrecognitiontools.Itsupportsandpromotestheactivities

oftheENICandNARICnetworksandmentionsitsmembershipofthenetworksinpublicationsandbrandingactivities.

Guidelines

§ ENIC/NARICofficesarethenationalcentreswhereallexpertiseonrecognitionis

available.Theymakeuseofthisexpertisebycontributingtohighereducation

policydevelopmentsandlegislationinthefieldofrecognitionatregional,

nationalandEuropeanlevel.Theyalsocooperatewithotherinformationcentres,

highereducationinstitutionsandtheirnetworksandotherrelevantactorsinthe

nationalcontext;

§ IntheEU-context,andasfarasNARICshavecompetenceinprofessional

recognitionmatters,theycooperatewiththeNationalCoordinatorandthe

competentauthoritiesfortheprofessionalrecognitionoftheregulated

professions(EUDirectives);

§ ENIC/NARICofficesco-operatewithintheENICandNARICNetworksonthe

disseminationanduseoftheoverarchingframeworkofqualificationsforthe

EuropeanHigherEducationAreaandaccordinglycontributeatnationallevelto

thefurtherdevelopmentanddisseminationofthenationalqualification

frameworks;

§ ENIC/NARICofficesparticipateinpublications,surveys,comparativestudiesand

otherresearchactivitiesundertakenbytheEuropeanCommission,Councilof

Europe,UNESCOandotherinternationalorganizations;

§ ENIC/NARICofficesdevelopcooperationwithrelevantorganisationsincountries

inotherregionsoftheworldworkinginthefieldofrecognitionandpromotethe

activitiesoftheENICandNARICNetworksincountriesinotherregionsofthe

world.

24

§ TheyrefertothemembershipoftheENICandNARICNetworksinallpublications

andcorrespondenceandonwebsitesandmakeappropriateuseofitslogo.





25

Annex 3 - SWOT TheformatfortheSWOTanalysis(pleasemindthefootnotes):§ Part1:Compliancewiththestandardsforgoodpractice§ Part2:SWOTanalysisTheformatfortheSWOTanalysis(pleasemindthefootnotes):§ Part1:Compliancewiththestandardsforgoodpractice§ Part2:SWOTanalysisPART1 PART2STANDARD

COMPLIANCE

Priority1(tickbox)

Internalcauses2 Externalcauses3

Actionpoints3

High Lowbeneficial(Strengths)

notbeneficial(Weaknesses)

beneficial(Opportunities)

notbeneficial(Threats)

26

*1 □ □ 2 □ □ 3 □ □ 4 □ □ 5 □ □ 6 □ □ 7 □ □ 8 □ □ 9 □ □ 10 □ □ 11 □ □ 12 □ □ 13 □ □ 14 □ □ 15 □ □ 16 □ □ 17 □ □ 18 □ □ *(1)nocompliance,(2)partialcompliance,(3)substantialcompliance,(4)fullcompliance.

27

1Forfurtheranalysispleasetakeintoconsiderationonlythestandardswithhighpriority.2Pleasebaseonyouranswersgiveninpart1:namethereasonsforyourcomplianceornoncompliancewiththestandardsanddecidewhichofthemarebeneficial,andwhicharenot.3Pleaseindicatehowtoconvertyourweaknessesintostrengths,andthreatsintoopportunities.

SQUARE Protocol FIN - enic-naric.net Protocol FIN.pdf · 3 Part 1 - Self-evaluation The...

Documents

Transcript of SQUARE Protocol FIN - enic-naric.net Protocol FIN.pdf · 3 Part 1 - Self-evaluation The...