Search

Franchised provision of higher education has been under the spotlight in recent times. Without shying away from the challenges faced by those delivering successful franchise arrangements, this paper shows how important franchising can be in extending access to higher education. The authors explain what protections need to be in place to ensure franchise arrangements work out for students. They end with clear recommendations to encourage more collaboration between franchisors, franchisees and regulators, such as the Office for Students.

Transnational joint education provision -- education jointly developed and delivered by two or more institutions in different countries -- has emerged as a desired experience for many students, a key priority of several institutions, and a site of innovation. The strategic importance of this topic on a European level is one of the reasons it was selected for the 2023 EUA Learning & Teaching Thematic Peer Group entitled "Challenges and enablers in designing transnational joint education provision". The group's findings are compiled in this report, which outlines the group's conceptual understanding of the term, benefits and challenges of engaging in transnational joint education provision, and recommendations geared towards higher education leadership, staff members, as well as national and regional-level governments.

Module A of the OECD Higher Education Policy Survey (HEPS) 2022 elicited information on policies to promote digitalisation of higher education in OECD member and accession countries. In total, 30 jurisdictions responded, providing comparative information on various areas of digitalisation policy, from regulation and governance to financial and human resources. The survey results provide insight into the role of public authorities in guiding, coordinating and resourcing the digital transformation of higher education institutions. The analysis and comparative tables in this working paper provide insights that can support the development of strategic digitalisation policies.

This paper discusses the developments in the renewable energy sector and their impact on jobs and training. It compiles and makes an analysis of how the available technologies in the market will further develop corresponding with global trends in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors, and the corresponding capacities that are needed to make the transition from fossil fuel-based consumption into another supported by renewable energy. The role of Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in developing skills and qualified professionals for jobs in the renewable energy sector is a key vector of analysis. [ADENE - Agência para a Energia, Renewables Academy AG (RENAC), and Copenhagen Centre on Energy Efficiency (C2E2) were contributors to this report.]

As education systems around the world begin to emerge from COVID-19-related lockdown, governments are facing the difficult decision of when and how to reopen schools, balancing the risks of widespread learning loss -- and the impact this will have on a generation of learners -- with the risks of virus transmission, which are more significant in low-income settings. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Education Development Trust has sought to be highly responsive to the changing needs of educators, system leaders and partners around the world. In doing so, Education Development Trust has developed an evidence base from which new thinking has been developed, called 'Learning Renewed', which reimagines what more effective, equitable and resilient education systems might look like, and how they might better withstand future shocks. This programme of work will be continuing in the coming months, but this report is the first major think piece in this series. In it, a vision for 'flexible reopening' of schools is outlined, supplemented by community-based learning. A 'middle way' is proposed between full closure and full reopening, featuring smaller, tutorial-style classes attending school on a part-time basis, supplemented by community-based learning. The flexible opening model is not without challenges, but it offers the real potential to ensure higher quality education provision for some of the world's most vulnerable children. [For "Maintaining Learning Continuity during School Closure: Community Health Volunteer Support for Marginalised Girls in Kenya. Paper 2 of the Learning Renewed Series," see ED614319.]

Fully online and hybrid study programmes have emerged at a rapid rate across higher education. However, the negative experience of some students, instructors and institutions with emergency remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to public concerns over the quality of digital study programmes. As a result, public authorities across the OECD have started to reflect on how to embed the quality assurance (QA) of digital education into their existing QA frameworks for higher education. This Working Paper aims to assist policy makers as they seek to adapt their higher education QA systems to digital education by: reviewing the advice and guidance provided by international and regional quality assurance organisations; analysing the standards and indicators for digital higher education developed by QA agencies; identifying trends and best practice from higher education institutions for the quality management of digital study programmes; and discussing how public authorities can support institutions to enhance their internal quality management policies and processes for digital teaching and learning.

The digital transition in educational testing has introduced many new opportunities for technology to enhance large-scale assessments. These include the potential to collect and use log data on test-taker response processes routinely, and on a large scale. Process data has long been recognised as a valuable source of validation evidence in assessments. However, it is now being used for multiple purposes across the assessment cycle. Process data is being deliberately captured and used in large-scale, standardized assessments -- moving from viewing it as a "by-product" of digital assessment, to its use "by design" to extend understanding of test-taker performance and engagement. While these techniques offer significant benefits, they also require appropriate validation practices to ensure that their use supports reliable inferences and do not introduce unintended negative consequences.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the current landscape in early childhood care and education and spark discussion and debate around potential areas for KIX investment. The paper is part of a series of discussion papers, drafted to support the engagement and consultation of developing country partners and technical experts in the initial design of the GPE Knowledge and Innovation Exchange. The ideas presented in the initial version of the paper served as a starting point for discussion and were modified significantly based on the consultation process, resulting in this updated version.

Changes in the credentialing market have produced a complex, multilayered ecosystem with a demand for shorter credentials that are focused around job market competencies. Community colleges are well positioned to lead this emerging market for three reasons. (1) Their dual mission to offer both traditional degrees and workforce development programs provides a competitive advantage in piloting and implementing many of the new types of credentials, especially those that can be embedded into traditional degree programs. (2) They have a long history in awarding certificates, one type of shorter work-aligned credential that is experiencing a new emphasis in today's market. (3) They have an established infrastructure, content knowledge experts, and employer relationships that can support a broad array of shorter credentials with a solid level of quality assurance. To play a central, even leading role, in the new credentialing market, community colleges must build credentials that respond to four growing trends and imperatives: building competency and market-oriented programs, structuring credentials to facilitate lifelong learning, unbundling learning in traditional degrees, and recognizing the need for quality assurance.

This report reviews the accomplishments of higher education accreditation relative to its symbiotic relationship with assessment, acknowledges serious criticisms and proposed reforms, and indicates how accreditation might reform itself so as to disarm calls for radical change, improve its performance, strengthen the institutions and programs it serves, and enhance public understanding of and appreciation for higher education.

During the past decade, national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) have been developed and implemented across Europe. Triggered by the adoption of the European qualifications framework (EQF) in 2008, these frameworks draw attention to the outcomes of education and training, focusing on what learners are expected to know, understand and are able to do. Learning outcomes-based level descriptors are essential to these frameworks. While technical in their character, these descriptors not only help to define and map the (vertical) level of complexity of a particular qualification, they also help to clarify its (horizontal) orientation, be this on theoretical knowledge, practical skills and/or transversal competences. Level descriptors are thus important reference points, aiming to reinforce the learning outcomes orientation of education, training and qualification systems. This publication provides an updated overview of NQF level descriptors of 39 countries participating in EQF implementation. It celebrates the 10th anniversary of the EQF process in 2018 and its contribution to transparency and comparability of European qualifications. It shows the progress made in this area and challenges ahead.

Quality in vocational education and training (VET) is a perennial topic of interest, attracting much attention from participants, providers, funders, regulators and public commentators. Quality is as much subjectively in the "eye of the beholder" as it is objectively assessed through hard data, measures and surveys. This paper summarises the quality of the VET system in Australia from the lens point of the eye of the beholder. It considers the perspectives of five key stakeholder groups: learners, employers/industry, providers, government and regulators. The paper explores, from the perspective of each of these groups, what is important in regards to the VET system, what constitutes and promotes a good-quality VET system, and what are the enablers and barriers to having a system that meets their expectations. The paper then examines the usefulness of the measures of quality currently available, as well as approaches that might be more effective. Key messages include: (1) Quality is context- and purpose-specific and means different things to the five stakeholder groups; (2) These multiple perspectives on quality operate at differing levels -- at the training program, at employment outcomes and at higher systemic levels; (3) Effective, fair and prompt regulation is foundational and essential in removing poor quality training from the system; and (4) A number of enabling factors have the potential to either support or detract from VET quality. These factors may impact both objective measures and subjective views of quality.

At some future point, when a definitive history of the assessment movement is written, one of the most frequently cited, influential publications will be "Assessment Update" ("AU"). Since 1989, this bimonthly newsletter has been published by Jossey-Bass in partnership with Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). It is no coincidence that the two most frequent contributors to "AU," Trudy Banta--"AU"'s founding editor and intellectual muse--and Peter Ewell, are also among the most prolific thinkers and writers shaping the scholarship and practice of student learning outcomes assessment. In this featured NILOA occasional paper, Banta and Ewell with the assistance of Cynthia Cogswell mine the pages of "AU" between 2000 through 2015 to distill the major themes and advances that characterize the evolution of assessment as a field of professional practice. [Foreword by George D. Kuh.]

While teachers' initial education is key to ensuring that new teachers are prepared for their work, it is only one piece in the continuum of teachers' professional growth. Continuing professional learning is vital for teachers to broaden and deepen their knowledge, keep up with new research, tools and practices and respond to their students' changing needs. It also plays a key role in building collaborative school cultures and supporting the collective improvement of the teaching profession. While the importance of continuing teacher learning is widely recognised, building efficient, equitable and sustainable professional learning systems is far from trivial. The OECD Teachers' Professional Learning (TPL) study seeks to support the development of effective TPL policies and practices in schools and school systems. This paper proposes a theoretical and analytical framework for the study, systematically maps available OECD indicators to this framework and identifies information gaps and areas for future comparative work.

At the centre of a student's university experience stands the programme that they follow. Therefore, creating curricula that are fit-for-purpose is at the heart of an institution's teaching mission. These curricula need to be relevant for students during their time at university, as well as serve as suitable preparation for their future professional and civic lives. This paper presents the work and conclusions of the European University Association (EUA) Learning & Teaching Thematic Peer Group on "Curriculum design", which identified nine components that contribute to the creation of an "ideal curriculum" covering all stages of the curriculum design.

The acceptance of new growth theory relates, in part, to a number of highly touted regional success stories--or what I term "Knowledge Based Economic Areas" (KBEAs) in this and past essays. The United States, and California in particular, is viewed as perhaps the most robust creators of KBEAs, providing an influential model that is visited and revisited by business and government leaders, and other Flagship (or leading national) universities, that wish to replicate their strengths within their own cultural and political terms. While California has a number of unique characteristics, including a robust University of California system with a strong internal academic culture and devotion to public service, the story of its historical and contemporary success as an agent of economic development is closely linked to a number of key contextual factors. These relate to the internal culture, governance and management capacity of major universities in the United States, national investment patterns in R&D, the business environment, including the concentration of Knowledge Based Businesses, the acceptance of risk, and the availability of venture capital, legal variables related to Intellectual Property (IP) and tax policies, the quality of regional workforces, and quality of life factors that are important components for attracting and retaining talent. In most of these KBEAs variables, California has enjoyed an advantage that helps to partially explain the success of the University of California (UC) and other major research universities as agents of economic development. This study focuses on seven contextual variables common to all KBEAs in the United States and much of the world, and with particular attention to the UC system--a network of ten research-intensive campuses. General Principles for a University Governing Board Association of Governing Boards (AGB) are appended.

Prepared for a CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) Strategic Education Governance Learning Seminar, this working paper analyses an ongoing reform in Austria to change the traditional sector-specific "supervision" of different school types to a system of quality management of all schools in the region and to introduce a new external school evaluation body. The paper identifies four pertinent areas for lasting success of the reform: a new focus on quality management and monitoring; a restructuring of existing sectorspecific school supervision bodies; creating a shared vision of quality and educational goals; and ensuring reliable and useful knowledge. Employing a complexity perspective to governance, the paper highlights that long-term sustainability of the reform requires a compelling narrative clarifying how school supervision supports education improvement and how supervision fits into wider education policy. The analysis further underlines the principle of co-creation in developing quality frameworks and establishing the methodology for the new external school evaluation body; and also for school leaders and school supervisors to drive the development of their new professional identities. Finally, to provide useful knowledge for schools and the system, the new external evaluation body should focus on the improvement of teaching and learning.

In pursuit of enhanced employability of university graduates, along with their increased mobility in a rapidly globalizing economy, colleges and universities in the world today participate in regional alliances and partnerships in which shared targets with mutually recognized degrees and curricula are sought across boundaries through transnational higher education policies. The Bologna Process is certainly exemplified as one of the most important multilateral efforts in the recent history of higher education, in establishing such a system of quality assurance within the European Higher Education Area. Although the member states of the Bologna Process endeavor to meet the common benchmarks on the preset assessment criteria, the speed of policy implementation is found to widely vary across the participating countries. This paper attempts to identify the sources of discrepancies in achieving the common policy targets among the member states and explore in particular the extent to which varying stages of socio-economic as well as political development, along with indigenous ethnic and linguistic complexities, affect the robust progress of implementing multilateral higher education policies. Our findings generally suggest significant impacts of these indigenous factors.

Universities across Europe are calling for a more student-centred, inclusive university environment bringing together all actors of the university community, while also implementing measures to achieve such a cultural shift. Members of the EUA [European University Association] Learning & Teaching Thematic Peer Groups are -- each based on their own perspective and experience -- advocating for such a shift because it is seen as a necessity. This paper highlights common and overarching conclusions and considerations present in the work and reports of these Thematic Peer Groups, while also drawing on other studies and reports concerned with learning and teaching.

It's a familiar if not fully explained paradigm. A "World Class University" (WCU) is supposed to have highly ranked research output, a culture of excellence, great facilities, and a brand name that transcends national borders. But perhaps most importantly, the particular institution needs to sit in the upper echelons of one or more world rankings generated each year by non-profit and for-profit entities. That is the ultimate proof for many government ministers and for much of the global higher education community. Or is it? It is not that current rankings are not useful and informative. The problem is that they represent a very narrow band of what it means to be a leading, or what might be best called a "Flagship" university within a region, within a nation. Further, WCU advocates do not provide much guidance, or knowledge, on what organizational behaviors and methods can lead to greater productivity in research, teaching, "and" public service that can best help universities meet the needs of the societies they must serve. In this essay I attempt to advocate the notion of the "Flagship University" as a more relevant ideal--a model for public institutions, and perhaps some private institutions, one that could replace, or perhaps supplement and alter the perceptions, behaviors, and goals of ministries and universities in their drive for status and influence on society. It is a model that does not ignore international standards of excellence focused largely on research productivity, but is grounded in national and regional service, and with a specific set of characteristics and responsibilities that, admittedly, do not lend themselves to ranking regimes. Indeed, one goal here is to articulate a path, using the language of the "Flagship University," that de-emphasizes rankings and that helps broaden the focus beyond research to relevancy and responsibility. "Flagship Universities" are research-intensive institutions, or in the process of becoming so, but have wider recognized goals. The great challenge for the network of universities that are truly leaders in their own national higher education systems is to shape their missions and, ultimately, to meaningfully expand their role in the societies that gave them life and purpose. The "Flagship University" profile explored here includes an outline of mission, culture, and operational features, and is intended as a possible construct for this cause. An appendix presents the Assigned Characteristics of a WCU.

Higher education stakeholders are increasingly aware of the need for systematic continuous professional development opportunities for university teachers. This report reflects the outcomes of the work of European University Association's (EUA) Learning & Teaching Thematic Peer Group on "Continuous development of teaching competences". It presents the group's recommendations for a targeted approach to developing pedagogical competences at the European, national, institutional, programme and individual levels, alongside case studies based on practices and initiatives in group members' institutions.

Higher education reforms over the last decade, resulting in the establishment of the European Higher Education Area, with new social demands and expectations, have greatly impacted quality assurance in higher education. As a follow-up activity to two previous surveys on external quality procedures, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) conducted a third survey concentrating on good practice in external quality assurance in order to explore the changes that are taking place, as well as the future areas of focus and activities of quality assurance agencies. The report presents a collection of current features of good practice in external quality assurance within the new priorities formulated by ENQA and following the Leuven/Louvain-la Neuve and Budapest/Vienna Communiques, highlighting the connection between the practices and the expected benefits for higher education institutions and stakeholders. In addition, the present report identifies practices that are expected to be implemented by quality assurance agencies, as well as areas where progress needs to be made, thus proposing a vision of the future of quality assurance procedures. The purpose of the report is also to promote technical and strategic networks among ENQA members addressing future challenges. "The Quality Procedures Questionnaire" is appended. (Contains 11 tables and 8 footnotes.)

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has focused on a small but vital set of accreditation issues for the past ten years. Most were selected because they are at the heart of accreditation (student achievement, relationship with government). Others were selected because they represent major expansions of accreditation activity (distance learning, international reviews). All have the potential to fundamentally transform the enterprise as we have historically known it: a system for quality assurance and quality improvement led by the academic community and built on the core values of the primacy of institutional leadership and thus autonomy in the academic arena, a mission-based and thus diverse higher education enterprise and the centrality of freedom of inquiry as captured by the commitment to academic freedom. The issues are:(1) Public Accountability; (2) Student Achievement; (3) Information to the Public; (4) Relationship with Federal and State Government; (5) Distance Education; (6) International Accreditation; (7) Degree Mills and Accreditation Mills; (8) Transfer of Credit; and (9) Financing Accreditation and Conflict of Interest. Presented is a compilation of key recommendations that CHEA has offered related to these issues during the past ten years. Many of these recommendations are the result of extensive outreach, consultation, and communication with many constituents, especially CHEA institutional members, higher education associations, and recognized accrediting organizations. A brief summary of CHEA's core recommendations on each issue is provided, followed by a selection of excerpts from various CHEA publications, advisory statements, letters, and testimony. These excerpts provide additional detail and perspective as well as identify other material in which the reader may be interested. Appended are: (1) The CHEA Initiative. The First Three Years (2008-2011); and (2) Section 3. Additional Reporting to the Public: Examples for Accreditors, Institutions and Programs. [This report was produced by CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance.]

In accordance with its strategic plan, the Board of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) has undertaken an analysis of the first tranche of review reports of agencies dating from the inception of the process in 2005 until December 2009. The intention of this analysis is to fulfil several purposes: (1) the report can be viewed as a self-evaluation undertaken by ENQA; it captures, reflects on and evaluates review work carried out so far; (2) the report provides valuable information on the use and applicability of the ESG in agency reviews; this information will be of interest not only to ENQA and its members but to other E4 members and beyond, particularly when considering the scope and content of any future review of the ESG themselves; (3) lessons learned from the project will help to shape the second round of reviews which is about to start; and (4) the report will prove useful in the general evolution of the respective missions of and methodologies used by ENQA and the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). In total, 34 reports were analysed. The recommendations and conclusions are grouped under six headings: (1) The level of compliance and the "maturity" of the agency, the legal contexts in which agencies work, and the year of review; (2) Panels and their Judgements, including terminology and consistency; (3) Problem areas--for the agencies or with the ESG?; (4) Training; (5) Impact of the ESG and their role in safeguarding QA in HE (have they done the job so far?); and (6) Issues for any review of the ESG themselves. The report is structured to allow the reader to see the main commentary and conclusions first, followed by an annex with a more detailed analysis against each of the ESG in order to demonstrate how the conclusions were reached. Appended are: (1) Annex (1) to the report on the review of agencies: detailed analysis of the reports in terms of individual standards in the ESG; and (2) Annex 2: Reports on agency reviews conducted between September 2005 and December 2009 (with date of publication of report on ENQA website).

In 2010 the organisations that form the E4 Group, notably ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), ESU (European Students Union), EUA (European University Association), and EURASHE (European Association of Institutions in Higher Education) launched the "Mapping the Implementation and Application of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (MAP-ESG)" project in order to gather information on how the ESG have been implemented and applied in the 47 Bologna signatory countries in higher education institutions and in quality assurance institutions, and to launch a thorough discussion on the ESG in their entirety. In doing so the E4 Group responded to a discussion which has gained momentum since 2009 and which suggested that there should be a review of the ESG. This report presents the results of the activities carried out in the context of the MAP-ESG project. In doing so the report provides the first overarching study on the implementation of the ESG in all its parts, and a thorough analysis of their impact. The report is based on the analysis of expert views from all relevant actors and stakeholders in higher education, notably teachers and students, higher education management and internal quality assurance bodies, external quality assurance agencies, EQAR and ministries, and the social partners. Therefore the recommendation of the project consortium to the Bologna Follow-up Group and the Ministerial meeting in Bucharest in April 2012 is to mandate a careful revision of the ESG in order to improve their clarity, applicability and usefulness. It integrates the perspectives of all stakeholders and, thus, forms a sound basis for ministers to take a well-informed decision on the further development of the ESG. Appended are: (1) Report on the ENQA consultation; (2) Executive Summary of the ESU consultation report; (3) EUA Consultation on the Implementation of the ESG; (4) General Introduction to the EURASHE Consultation; (5) Abbreviations; and (6) Steering Group Members. (Contains 10 footnotes.

The Quality Convergence Study (QCS) project, a follow-up to a 2002 ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) survey of quality assurance practices in European countries, was carried out between September 2003 and October 2004. The project was coordinated by a project team consisting of representatives of ENQA member agencies and conducted by six member agencies of ENQA. The project team also made good use of six external quality assurance experts. This publication at hand is the final report of the project. The objective of the QCS project was to study the possibilities for convergence of national quality assurance systems in Europe through six examples, with the aim of obtaining identifiable reference points for transnational evaluations. In practical terms, the project aimed to find out "why" national quality assurance systems operate in particular, yet commonly identifiable ways in different national contexts. The existing descriptions of "how" these quality assurance processes work, formed the starting point of the project. Consequently, the QCS project had as its distinct purpose to increase understanding of those processes and their context in order to provide a base from which further action might be considered. In that sense, the project broke new ground. The writing of the self-analysis documents (SADs) and their examination constituted an important part of the project. Each participating agency drafted a detailed description about its specific national quality assurance context. After a cross-checking exercise, the SADs were sent to the external experts for analysis on the possibilities of convergence. The SADs have not been included into this paper, but can be found on the ENQA website at: http://www.enqa.net/pubs.lasso. One of the most important findings of the study is that convergence can be achieved not only by identifying similarities in the higher education systems, but also by understanding the different national contexts. The higher education systems are complex and constantly changing contexts for external quality assurance. The overall concept and objectives of the project fit closely with the aims of the Bologna Process. (Contains 20 footnotes.)

Ministers responsible for higher education in the Bologna signatory states welcomed in 2005 the principle of a European Register of quality assurance agencies based on national reviews. They asked ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), in cooperation with EUA (European University Association), EURASHE (European Association of Institutions in Higher Education) and ESIB (European Student Information Bureau) (E4 Group), to develop the practical aspects of the Register and report back through the Bologna Follow-up Group. The E4 Group accepted this responsibility and met nine times between the Bergen ministerial meeting and February 2007. It hired a consultant to carry out a round of interviews with various stakeholders around Europe and consulted with a law firm about the legal aspects of the Register. The present document is the E4 Group's final report to the Bologna Process conference of ministers responsible for higher education, London, 17-18 May 2007. It is based on the outcomes of the E4 Group discussions, the report from the consultant, the legal advice and feedback from the BFUG on the earlier drafts of the report. This final report also proposes a draft text for the London Communique. Appended are: (1) Summary of proposals; (2) Proposed organisational structure and process of the Register; (3) Legal advice concerning the Register; (4) Cost estimate of the Register; and (5) Guidelines for national reviews of ENQA member agencies. (Contains 2 figures and 6 footnotes.)

The purpose of this report is to review the past and present external quality assurance for higher education in Portugal and to recommend a future quality assurance and accreditation system that meets the standards for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. The review was carried out on the initiative of the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (MCTES) which requested ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) to appoint an international panel to conduct the review. During the review process, the Portuguese government announced that the present evaluation system will be dismantled by the end of 2006 and replaced by a new system for accreditation by the beginning of 2007. This initiative parallels activities in a growing number of European countries that are applying quality assurance systems for higher education that are based on an accreditation approach. The panel is, however, convinced that the new system would benefit from a broader quality assurance approach than one based exclusively on accreditation. The panel has completed a review of the past and present system in accordance with the agreement with MCTES, and the European standards for the review of external quality assurance agencies have formed the basis for the review process. Considering the fact that the European standards were only recently adopted by the relevant ministers of the Bologna signatory countries, the current quality assurance agency, the National Council for Evaluation of Higher Education (CNAVES), cannot in all fairness be expected to have developed its organisation and processes according to those standards. However, it has been the conclusion of the panel that the review would suffer from a serious lack of transparency and comparability if the standards were not applied as the frame of reference for the review. Appended are: (1) Terms of reference; (2) ENQA panel; (3) Professional associations; (4) Site visit programme; (5) Summary list of European standards for quality assurance; (6) Overview of recommendations; (7) Budget for the quality assurance agency; and (8) Criteria for accreditation of university study programmes and polytechnic study programmes. (Contains 7 footnotes and 28 notes.)

The second Transnational European Evaluation Project (TEEP II) was undertaken between August 2004 and June 2006. A methodology for evaluating transnational programmes had previously been tested during 2002-2003 by ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) in the first Transnational European Evaluation Project (TEEP I). TEEP II was designed both to follow up and to develop further that work and so to continue to advance cross-border external quality assurance methods in an area where no single regulatory body can assume full responsibility. TEEP II had three primary objectives, to: (1) pilot the transnational quality evaluation of three different joint master's programmes; (2) test the use of comparable quality evaluation criteria for joint master's degrees; and (3) develop a method for transnational external evaluation building on previous professional experience using common criteria. The project involved many actors across several countries: six quality assurance agencies, three programmes (each with partners in a minimum of five countries) and experts from across Europe. Each programme shared its "jointness", but in other areas there was divergence: subject, philosophy, objectives, history, etc. This made it possible both to compare and to contrast the three programmes and so to draw conclusions from a more robust vantage point. The project was bracketed by two conferences, one at the beginning and one at the end of the exercise. Both conferences brought together all those involved and ensured a good level of mutual understanding with which to begin the project as well as an opportunity for shared reflection to close it. The present report emphasises the importance for joint programmes of developing quality assurance and enhancement processes which operate across the programme as a whole--wherever it is delivered. It also stresses the need to mirror the essential transnational character of the programmes in the external evaluation process--through the participation of experts and quality assurance organisations from different countries, working together. TEEP II has demonstrated successfully how that can be achieved. The report identifies a number of areas for further work and proposes that through working together with the European University Association (EUA) ENQA may be able to refine the methods for external and internal evaluation of joint master's programmes. Appended are: (1) Management group and Expert Teams; (2) Self-evaluation manual; (3) EUA Golden Rules for New Joint Masters Programmes; (4) Launch conference programme; and (5) Closing conference programme. (Contains 28 footnotes.)

In this publication ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) has taken the opportunity to bring together two distinct but related reports. Part 1 examines the language of European quality assurance. It grew out of the debates and discussions at an ENQA workshop in Warwick in June 2006. The success of the workshop highlighted the support needed by all agencies as they deal with the linguistic challenges involved in creating a European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Part 2 contains the findings of the second Quality Convergence Study (QCS II). The first Quality Convergence Study (QCS) examined why national quality assurance systems operate in different, yet commonly identifiable, ways in particular national contexts. Building on this, QCSII has sought to go beyond the technical language of quality assurance and provide an opportunity for agencies to reflect on the values that underpin their quality assurance systems. Both of these reports aim to contribute to promoting understanding of the multiple layers of meaning which become apparent when we attempt to understand quality assurance across borders, and across languages. They do not offer a conclusion, but a point of departure for further research and reflection. Individual parts contain footnotes and appendices.

This is a report on the quality review of distance learning in a sample of five countries. The report was commissioned by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's (CHEA's) International Commission in order to understand better the nature of existing regulatory arrangements in the context of growth in electronically supported learning and in the import and export of education world-wide. The data collected from readily available public sources were used to create country case studies for Jordan, Malaysia, Australia, Kenya and the UK, which were subsequently verified by in-country experts. From the data and information collected, a summary report was produced in two parts. Part One summarizes information and issues arising from relevant policy reports and academic literature. The sections of the report cover: context and terminology, approaches to quality review, agencies involved, review processes, and challenges and issues in the quality review of distance learning. The second part presents data from the case studies. After a brief section outlining the socio-economic context, educational system and policy context for each country, Part Two addresses the main themes of the project: the nature of distance learning in each country and the main providers, the nature of the regulatory and quality assurance systems as they apply generally and to distance learning in particular, and the relationship between trade in educational services (from an importing and exporting perspective) and arrangements for quality review. [This report was produced by CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance. It was prepared for the International Commission of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.]

The Government is committed to introducing a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) to assess the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. Designing the right solution is challenging. There is no off-the-shelf solution from other countries that we can lift. But we can learn lessons from other sectors. This pamphlet explores rating systems that exist in other parts of the education sector and also the care sector, before considering the implications for the TEF. The author, who has a background in consumer affairs, makes two recommendations: (1) to integrate the TEF more fully within the quality assurance system; and (2) to delay the TEF's introduction until we are sure it is right.

The European Training Foundation's (ETF) approach to promoting systemic and systematic quality assurance in vocational education and training (VET) is set out in this working paper. Quality assurance in VET is summarised by the ETF as the measures established to verify that processes and procedures are in place, which aim to ensure the quality and quality improvement of VET. The ETF uses the following definition of VET: "education and training which aim to equip people with knowledge, know-how, skills and/or competences required in particular occupations or more broadly on the labour market." The intention of this working paper is to serve as a resource for ETF staff and its function is to support a common ETF approach to promoting quality assurance in VET in partner countries. The paper will be made available to a wider audience with an interest in quality assurance in VET. ETF partner countries have signaled the need for more effective quality assurance measures to help improve the quality and relevance of VET outcomes. They aim to strengthen quality assurance policies and measures that support the development of good VET governance and management, good qualifications systems, good qualifications and good learning environments facilitated by good teachers and trainers. The main purpose of this working paper is to guide ETF staff to support partner countries in their endeavours to develop further their approach to quality assurance in VET. The paper has five chapters. The background to present-day quality assurance is presented in Chapter 1. Concepts important to the understanding of the ETF approach to quality assurance in VET are reviewed in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, the evolution of European policies for quality assurance is summarised. The "status quo" of quality assurance policy and practice in ETF partner countries and reform needs and challenges, as presented in the Torino Process reports, are discussed in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the ETF approach to promoting quality assurance in VET development, based on the conceptual framework set out in the preceding chapters. (A bibliography is included.)