Lisbon Recognition Convention and its Implementation in the Ratifying Countries

Assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications in Estonia

Academic recognition in Latvia

Role of Academic Information Centre in the recognition of professional qualifications in Latvia

Mission report of Activity: 3.5 Enhancing Practices and Procedures

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.5 Enhancing Practices and Procedures

Name of the Experts: Mr Gunnar Vaht; Ms Baiba Ramina

Dates of the Mission: 17–21 October 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The Republic of Azerbaijan signed the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) in 1997 and was first country that ratified (1998) the Convention. The preliminary system of recognition of foreign qualifications was introduced in 1992, but the Government Regulation on recognition process according to the principles of the LRC was adopted in 2003.

Until 2016 the competent authority for nostrification was Ministry of Education, since April 2016 the recognition and nostrification tasks were transferred to the ANO when this new institution was established for accreditation and nostrification/recognition.

The Republic of Azerbaijan is highly interested in qualified specialists studied abroad, and for this purpose there is a strict and detailed assessment of study programmes and foreign qualifications. The recognition authority often meets the problem that the quality of some individual qualifications from some countries of former Soviet Union is not at appropriate level to the labor market in Azerbaijan.

About 70% of foreign qualifications are recognised in practice, 20% are not recognised on the reason that knowledge of holders of foreign qualifications are at lower level than requirements in national standards and 10% of applicants present incomplete documentation for nostification.

The ANO is the only competent authority for recognition of foreign qualifications in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The holder of qualification should present the application together with all documentation on-line to the ANO. According to the national legislation, all documents must be translated and certified by apostille. In case the country is not party to the Hague Convention, the legalisation is required. The time limit is usually one month and the process is not free of charge to the applicant.

The procedure to the nostrification has three steps: 1) checking application and documents submitted for nostrification, and assessing whether the qualification is awarded by a recognized education institution; 2) assessing and giving equivalency to the qualification, and 3) inviting the applicant to the interview, and making final nostrification decision.

The assessment of foreign qualification for nostrification is based on seeking equivalency of the study programme. During the assessment of programme it is compared whether the programme completed abroad correspond to the national standard of the same or similar programme. The assessment of equivalency takes place at universities where the same or similar programmes are offered. The comparison of equivalency includes the list of courses and number of hours of each course. The programme content should be the same or very similar to the programme provided by the universities in Azerbaijan. In case the programme is not offered by the universities in Azerbaijan, the foreign qualification should be not recognized.

If a foreign qualification is not recognized, the ANO will explain the reason of rejection. The applicant has right to appeal the nostrification decision.

At the end of nostrification process an applicant receive two certificates – one for general recognition and one for nostrification.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of the mission was to facilitate the elaboration of a proposal for reflecting higher education of the AzQF in Azerbaijani recognition procedures and practices. The objective includes interviews of the staff at ANO on present practices and future plans on recognition of higher education qualifications, qualifications giving access to higher education and periods of study.

Main tasks and methods were to work together with local experts on recognition of qualifications concerning higher education at ANO and higher education institutions in order to enhance current recognition process (criteria and procedure) in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The method consisting also visits to universities in order to facilitate the role of higher education institutions in assessment of foreign qualifications, periods of study and credit transfer. Important part of the methods to facilitate the main objective of the mission was the seminar/workshop on academic and professional recognition of qualifications in the European Union, and on implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention in EHEA.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results of the mission were proposals for updating recognition procedures and practice.

All expected results were achieved.

6. Unexpected Results

No unexpected results occurred.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues regarding the mission were left open. The purpose of the mission was fulfilled.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

It is recommended to organise a one-day seminar on recognition of foreign qualifications and periods of study to the representatives of Ministry of Education, ANO and higher education institutions focusing on the recognition practices of Estonia and Latvia, in the European Higher Education Area according to the principles of the LRC and its subsidiary texts. It is relevant that all staff of the ANO will attend on the seminar, because the topics presented on the seminar is relevant for day-to-day work on assessment of qualifications.

In addition to the seminar the experts recommend a workshop on assessment criteria and recognition practices to the staff of ANO.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Until March 2016 the nostrification process took place at the Ministry of Education, and from April 2016 this duty moved, and responsibility was given to the ANO, the new organization for accreditation and recognition. The ANO is operating few months only, but is already well prepared and dynamic division for assessment and recognition of foreign qualification. The staff of the division is open to introduce new developments according to the LRC and its subsidiary texts.

Current system of recognition (nostrification) of foreign qualifications is focusing on the content of the programme, the content of each course, number of working hours and other input elements that makes the recognition too detailed and complex. According to the subsidiary texts and recognition in light of qualifications framework the recognition of foreign qualifications should be based on five elements of the qualifications – level, workload, profile, quality and learning outcomes. The ANO works for simplification of the nostrification process, but the draft guidelines for new recognition system are not yet adopted by the Government.

One purpose to the new guidelines is to simplify the recognition process of the qualifications awarded by the universities in the lists of internationally recognised rankings. It is foreseen, that 500 ranked universities will be automatically recognised by other bodies and there is no need to apply the recognition by the ANO. However, it is recommended that all qualification should be threated on same way, despite whether the institution is ranked or not in the list of world rankings. According to the ENIC network practice the ranking should be not taking into account as a criterion.

According to the general principles and spirit of the LRC, the assessment of foreign qualifications should be changed from equivalency of the programmes and qualifications to the assessment of outcomes towards the recognition of qualifications unless substantial differences can be shown. Assessment and recognition process in Azerbaijan is still based on seeking for equivalence. The higher education programme completed in a foreign university is compared with the same or similar programme  in Azerbaijan and if there is no full match or if such programme or such programme is not offered in the universities in Azerbaijan, the recognition is rejected and the holder of a foreign qualification cannot enter to the labour market.

Therefore it can be suggested that the Ministry of Education will improve the recognition procedures moving from equivalence to the recognition if there is no substantial differences can be shown between the foreign and national qualification. For this purpose there are important there are several tools and guidelines presented and approved like European Area of Recognition (EAR) manual, which is a good practical guidelines for recognition authorities, credential evaluators and admissions officers to provide fair and flexible recognition of foreign qualifications and periods of study.

Also it can be suggested to use and implement subsidiary texts to the LRC to improve recognition of qualifications concerning higher education. Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for Assessment of Foreign Qualifications (revised, adopted in 2010), and Recommendation on the Use the Qualifications Frameworks in the Recognition of Foreign Qualifications (adopted in 2013) are the fundamental tools for this process to introduce recommended criteria and procedure towards fair recognition based on learning outcomes.

The qualifications awarded upon completion of the on-line programme are not recognized in Azerbaijan. The same position is also in some other countries party to the LRC, even in principle the mode of study should be not a criterion in the system recognition of qualification. The mode of study doesn´t reflects the quality of study, learning outcomes or qualification earned.

The ANO receives a lot of foreign qualifications for recognition, the important amount of applicants are coming from the countries of former Soviet Union, mostly from Russian Federation and Ukraine. There are problems with fake degrees, studies and documents from these countries. The ANO is putting a lot of efforts to check the authenticity of diplomas and studies, and quite a lot of time is spent for verification and interviews of the applicants/holders of qualifications. However the time limit for assessment at ANO is one month which is a good practice in the European Higher Education Area.

The ANO is using on-line application tool and is interested to improve on-line recognition procedures and digital student data exchange. Therefore it can be suggested the ANO to get acquainted with Groningen Declaration ideas (http://www.groningendeclaration.org/) on student digital data exchange.

ENIC and NARIC Networks are useful in collecting information about education systems and lists of recognized education institutions, and for experience and best practices. The ANO looking forward to cooperate with the ENIC network, because it can benefit a lot being a part of ENIC listserv, where is active everyday information exchange about education systems, higher education institutions and qualifications. The ENIC network is established to exchange information and support assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications as well to exchange information on higher education systems and recognised institutions.

Effort should be put to improve language skills of the recognition staff of ANO. The working language of ENIC network is English, also all projects introduced by the European Commission and working documentation presented by the Council of Europe and UNESCO is in English. Therefore to be member of the ENIC network and recognition process in the European region the use of English is necessary.

During the mission two universities were visited to review the assessment and recognition procedures at the institutional level. The Baku State University and Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University both have experience in international cooperation providing joint programmes and participating on student exchange activities.

The applicants holding a foreign secondary school qualification will be assessed by the universities. In case the applicant has not a required level language skills or the secondary school study programme in a foreign country has no relevant courses in the programme, the foundation year is provided before admission to the first year of undergraduate courses.

Higher education qualifications in access to second and third cycle studies will be assessed by ANO, the university will forward the application to the ANO for recognition of a qualification. For recognition of access qualifications (secondary education certificates), the universities are competent recognition authorities and assessment of such qualifications take place at the institutions. The assessment process is not regulated or not very clear at institutional level. There are no regulation for certain assessment criteria and there is no guarantee that applicants have information about the assessment and recognition procedure. There is more coordination and collaboration recommended between the higher education institutions and ANO, but it means also additional duty and responsibility for ANO. Higher education institutions need standard guidelines for recognition. The Ministry of Education and ANO may provide the guidelines for this issue on the basis of EAR manual.

The recognition of periods of study and transfer of credits are responsibilities of higher education institutions. Each university has a commission assessing marks and credits obtained during the semester, year or more abroad. Universities have willingness to improve the recognition of periods of study, however, still a lot of attention is paid to seeking for equivalence of subject content. Therefore it can be suggested to universities to use EAR manual for higher education institutions which is a good practical guidelines for credential evaluators and admissions officers to provide flexible recognition of periods of study. It is suggested to benefit from ECTS User Guide, since ECTS is based on the learning achievements and workload.

Mission report of Activity: 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 1. Legal and Regulatory

Activity: 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

Name of the Experts: Ms Sille Uusna, Ms Lagle Zobel

Dates of the Mission: 31 October – 4 November 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Recently, the MoE introduced a draft of the new State standard and program for higher education (State standard). During the first missions of Activity 1.2 that took place on October 3 – 7, 2016, the STEs gave MoE some concrete recommendations regarding this draft, in order to ensure its compatibility with the principles of the European higher education area and create consistency between different regulations concerning the HE subject area. The present Mission was focused on the Statute of higher education institutions (Statute of HEIs) in the context of HE legislation system in Azerbaijan.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The main objectives of the Mission were:

• To evaluate the accordance of Education law and Statute of HEIs to discover possible overlapping, gaps and contradictions.
• To give recommendations on the Statute of HEIs in the light of previous recommendations, State standard and study level standards.
• To conduct an interactive workshop on the subject of existing and potential future hierarchy and structure of Azerbaijani HE legislation.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results of the mission were achieved. In workshops, the recommendations were comprehensively discussed. Due to the active participation of Higher Education Department, legal expert and ANO, it was possible to critically evaluate the impact and applicability of recommendations.

6. Unexpected Results

There were no unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

According to the representatives of the MoE, the final version of the State Standard draft should be completed by the end of this November. So there may be need for another 1.2. Mission in the beginning of 2017 to review this document.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

In previous Mission Reports, STEs have constantly underlined the importance of active participation of the Legal Department of the MoE in the activities of Component 1. During the current Mission, an Advisor of Legal Department was present during several important discussions on legal framework and showed an active interest in further participation in Mission’s activities. Such involvement must be fully recognized and strongly encouraged and promoted also during future Missions.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

1. Remarkable efforts have been made in reviewing the existing legislation and repealing the provisions not needed anymore (consolidation of accreditation regulations, preparing the merging of four separate level HE standards in one regulation, a new draft for Scientific Board etc). We strongly recommend continuing with that kind of activities.

During the mission, STEs met with highly competent and motivated experts from HE Department, ANO and Legal Department. We strongly recommend promoting their cooperation to combine competence in different fields. We recommend that those experts could in a form of brainstorming draft a possible structure and hierarchy of reasonable HE legislation system. It is also advisable to use the format of joint brainstorming for discussing future initiatives of HE issues the MoE. Joint effort and promoted cooperation, also in more informal manner than formal working groups, could lead to an excellent result.

We also support the developments that allow the legal expert in Legal Department to specialize to HE issues specifically. HE field is complex and versatile and its legislation needs a lot of dedication.

2. MoE has not yet finalized their review of the draft State Standard of HE. HE Department intends to have it ready by the end of November 2016. According to the HE Department, so far, some key recommendations have been discussed and appear to be generally well received and approved by the MoE. Also, systematic work is claimed to be in progress to reduce overlapping in different HE regulations.

3. At the moment, there is no clear-cut higher education framework regulation in place in Azerbaijan. The basic principles of higher education have been scattered between different regulations (The Education Law, Statute of HEIs, State Standards, and also some lower-ranking legal acts, e.g decrees of the MoE). We recommend creating a comprehensive higher education (HE) framework regulation which includes all basic principles of HE. For example, founding and management of higher education institutions (HEIs); the purpose of the activities and the functions of HEIs; basic requirements of licensing and applying the right to conduct studies of both HEIs and study programs; members of HEIs and their rights and obligations; the conditions and procedure for studies; main principles for quality assurance and accreditation; basic criteria for funding of the HEIs; main operating principles for student unions.

One major legal framework regulation could provide the systematic approach which is necessary to cover many conceptual changes The Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan envisages in a short period of time. We recommend to carrying on mapping the regulations that need to be changed or improved in order to achieve the strategic targets and implement the measures of the Action Plan.

A possibility of drafting a new act for HE was discussed, but in the nearer future the realistic solution would be the improvement of existing Statute of HEIs, which could concentrate all the important definitions and basic principles for HE.

4. The criteria of research universities are currently being developed in the frame of implementation provisions of the new Law on Science. We recommend to include the criteria of a research university in either the Education Law or the Statute of HEIs. For example, requirement of a high level of scientific activities and some basic principles how to evaluate this (publications, success applying research funding, positive results of evaluation of research etc). Also, it is recommendable to connect the status of research university with the exclusive right to conduct doctoral studies.

5. We recommend to reduce overlapping between different HE regulations by consolidating some basic definitions and principles (period of studies, rights given by the diploma, etc.) in the Statute of HEIs and leave the provisions concerning specific organization of studies in the State Standard for HE (see also recommendations from previous 1.2 Mission Report). All the important definitions for HE could be gathered in one place. Important definitions in the field of higher education not already mentioned in laws might be added to the Statute of HEIs, for example study program, credit point, study forms (part-time, full-time), learning outcome, Diploma Supplement, academic year, etc.

6. At the moment, the quality requirements for establishing new HEIs/study programs have not been included in any general framework regulation yet. We recommend including the basic principles of licensing/opening new study programs in the Statute for HEIs. For example, quality requirements like existence of teaching staff, curricula with learning outcomes, material resources, approved statute of HEI, etc.; special conditions for research universities (high-level research activity); the body (or bodies) who evaluates the application/makes the decision.

At the moment, the link between licensing and accreditation is not clear. In order to ensure the continuity between licensing/opening a new study program and accreditation, the quality requirements for opening new HEIs and new study program should be in accordance with the requirements later taken into account for accreditation.

7. Main components of accreditation and the accrediting body have been established both in the Education Law and the Statute of HEIs. However, the accreditation object is not entirely clear and the accreditation results are only described in detail in Approval of accreditation rules of education institutions - for this, no clear delegation provision can be found in the Education Law or the Statute. It is recommended to include in the Statute of HEIs the basic principles of quality assurance and accreditation, including the object of accreditation (institutions or study programs or both); accreditation period; accrediting body and it’s general formation principles, composition (incl. limitations); consequences of a negative accreditation.

8. At the moment, management of HEIs is regulated in the Education Law, the Statute of HEIs, the State Standard for HE and the Regulation of Scientific Board of higher education institution. We recommend covering the basic management structure of HEIs in the Statute for HEIs, including the main rights and responsibilities of all management bodies in correct subordination (top-down) and with a comparable level of generalization. For example, the tasks of the rector have currently been described in very general terms. At the same time, tasks of the dean, chair of the faculty, etc. have been outlined in great detail and could be extensively reduced/left to the autonomy of the HEIs.

The main division of responsibilities between Rector and Scientific Board is unclear and needs to be clarified in the Statute of HEIs. Instead of giving the Rector right to approve all Scientific Board’s decisions, it would be advisable to give him/her, for example, one-time veto right in order to make a clearer division between the rights, obligations and responsibilities between the Rector and the Scientific Board (regarding this suggestion, see also recommendations from the previous 1.2 Mission Report).

9. Currently the specific criteria of funding of the HEIs are in separate regulation. We recommend adding main funding criteria of HEIs in the Statute for HEIs. Also we recommend for the future developing performance indicators (etc. number and employability of graduates, level of international cooperation, etc.) as a basis for the shaping of the student enrolment plan and also corresponding expectations and obligations of the HEIs. This would give a clear indicator to the universities, which kind of activities performed by HEIs are promoted by the State and which kind of outcomes the state expects from the HEIs in return for the funds allocated.

10. At the moment, principles of forming student unions are not clear. We recommend regulating the structure of self-administration of student unions in a centralized manner. It is advisable to include in the Statute of HEIs the main principles about student union elections, approving the charter of the union, their funding and responsibilities.

Mission report of Activity: 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 1. Legal and Regulatory

Activity: 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

Name of the Experts: Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Ms Lagle Zobel

Dates of the Mission: 7 – 11 November 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

As a result of the previous mission of Activity 1.2 that took place on October 31 – November 4, 2016, the STEs gave MoE a recommendation to include in the Statute of HEIs the basic principles of quality assurance and accreditation, including the object of accreditation (institutions or study programs or both); accreditation period; accrediting body and it’s general formation principles, composition (incl. limitations); and consequences of a negative accreditation.

In order to ensure the continuity between licensing/opening a new study program and accreditation, the STEs also recommended that the quality requirements for opening new HEIs and new study program should be in accordance with the requirements later taken into account for accreditation.

Recently, the Accreditation and Nostrification Office of the MoE (ANO) has introduced new drafts of Accreditation Rules of Higher Education Institutions (Accreditation Rules) and Standards determining the compliance of the activity of institution with the requirements of state education standards (Accreditation Standards). These drafts should be forwarded to the Cabinet of Ministers for approval during the year 2016.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The main objectives of the Mission were:

• Identification and comprehensive discussion of ANO’s main areas of regulation in the light of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the Accreditation Manual for Pilot Evaluations (Accreditation Manual).
• Discussion of other specific areas of interest for ANO.
• Formulation of concrete recommendations for the input into the draft Accreditation Standards and Accreditation Rules.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results of the mission were achieved. In workshops, ANO draft Accreditation Rules and Accreditation Standards, as well as recommendations were comprehensively discussed. Due to the active participation of ANO, the Higher Education Department and the legal expert, it was possible to critically evaluate the impact and applicability of recommendations.

Remarkable efforts have been made by ANO and the HE Department in reviewing the existing Accreditation Rules and Accreditation Standards.  In order to provide further support ANO regarding the improvement of their regulatory framework, we have the following recommendations:

Regarding the Accreditation Rules

1. According to clause 3.1 of the revised ESG, the quality assurance activities undertaken by the agencies should have clear and explicit goals and objectives that are made available to the stakeholders.

At the moment, the object of accreditation is not clear. According to clause 1.2 of the draft Accreditation Rules, accreditation of higher education institutions is carried out by ANO, sub-areas including organization of education process, technical resources, study programs, staff capacity, financial resources and educational infrastructure. The draft Accreditation Standards supports such an institutional approach. However, the rest of the Accreditation Rules repeatedly mentions also study program accreditation. For example, according to clause 6.3 of the Rules, it is also possible to separately accredit individual study programs of the HEI. Discussions with ANO revealed that they are indeed conducting a kind of hybrid accreditation where study program accreditation is carried out separately in parallel with institutional accreditation. In the future, there are plans to separate the two accreditations.

In order to make the objects (both institutions and separate study programs) of ANO accreditation more clear for the stakeholders, we recommend to also explicitly mention study program accreditation in the Statute of HEIs and under the general provisions of the draft Accreditation Rules.In the long term, it is also advisable to implement the plans for making a clear distinction between two different accreditations. Due to the voluminous amount of study programs, the current approach (accrediting the institutions together with study programs) does not allow devoting sufficient attention to the overall quality of the programs and thus, remains inevitably formalistic.

2. Currently, there is no legal framework regarding the possible use of foreign agencies in the accreditation process. We recommend including the conditions and procedure for the use of foreign agencies in the Statute of HEIs and mention this possibility also in the Accreditation Rules. Whether or not to officially recognize the results of any kind of cross-border evaluation is obviously a policy decision for the MoE. However, we believe that allowing these kinds of activities would create a positive incentive for further internationalization of the HEIs and also ANO. It would also help to disseminate best practices of other agencies.

3. According to clause 3.3 of the ESG, agencies should be independent and act autonomously. This includes organizational and operational independence and independence of formal outcomes. Currently, ANO enjoys a fair amount of operational independence. However, as ANO is a part of the MoE and the final decisions are made by the Accreditation Council chaired by the minister of education, organizational independence is clearly lacking. As a positive development, the Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan (Action Plan) already foresees the creation of an independent QA agency.

As soon as the full trust of the Ministry has been gained, we recommend giving ANO full organizational and operational autonomy regarding its procedures and formal outcomes of the quality assurance processes.

4. Clause 6.1 of the Accreditation Rules describes the composition of the Accreditation Council. However, neither the number of council members nor the duration of their election period is specified in any legal regulation. Discussion with ANO revealed that there is no permanent council established and new members (whose number is variable) are selected on an ad hoc basis for each meeting.

In order to ensure necessary consistency of assessment decisions and equal treatment of HEIs during the decision-making process, we strongly recommend electing a fixed amount of members of the Accreditation Council on a permanent basis, e.g. for a time period of three to five years. We also recommend including (a) student member(s) in the council. The reviewed principles of election and composition of the Council, including possible limitations, should be included in the Statute of HEIs and the draft Accreditation Rules.

5. According to clause 2.5 of the ESG, any outcomes or judgments made as the result of external quality assurance should be based on explicit and published criteria that are applied consistently, irrespective of whether the process leads to a formal decision. In other words, to ensure equal and fair treatment of the HEIs, the margin of discretion of the Accreditation Council should be limited by some basic decision-making principles.

At the moment, draft Accreditation Rules does not include any criteria for decision-making. We recommend including some basic decision-making criteria for the council (allowing to predict possible accreditation results) either in the Accreditation Rules or some other ANO regulation made available to the public.

6. Pursuant to clause 2.4 of the ESG, external quality assurance should be carried out by groups of external experts that include (a) student member(s). Currently, selection criteria of members of the Accreditation Commission (clause 4.2 of draft Accreditation Rules) do not include a specific requirement to involve at least one student member in the commission. We recommend adding an explicit requirement to include a student member in the Accreditation Commission in the draft Accreditation Rules. It would also be advisable to include international experts and representatives in the commission.

7. According to clause 3.4 of the Accreditation Rules, the ANO Office may provide expert support services on a paid basis during pre-accreditation (preparation for accreditation) stage upon the request of institution. This might create a situation where the accrediting body is later going to evaluate its own work, thus jeopardizing the objectivity of accreditation results. Also, HEIs that can allow paying for these kinds of services would be in a privileged situation in comparison with other institutions.

In order to guarantee equal treatment of all HEIs, we recommend reviewing clause 3.4 of the Accreditation Rules. Instead of providing individual expert support for HEIs on a paid basis, ANO could, for example, organize general consultation seminars on self-analysis open for all HEIs for a symbolic fee.

8. According to clause 2.6 of the ESG, full reports by the experts should be published, clear and accessible to the academic community, external partners and other interested individuals. Also, any formal decision should be published together with the report.Clause 6.3.1 of the draft Accreditation Rules foresees the publication of positive accreditation report. However, this principle does not appear to be applied in case of conditional and negative accreditation results (clauses 6.3.2 and 6.3.3). We recommend including in the Accreditation a requirement to make all accreditation reports and decisions available to the public.

9. We recommend include in the Accreditation Rules a possibility to organize informal interactive follow-up seminars in between accreditations. This would create an open space for ANO, HEIs and also other stakeholders to discuss the developments following recommendations received during accreditation and give constructive feedback on accreditation criteria and processes.

Regarding the Accreditation Standards

10. Clause 1.1 of the draft Accreditation Standards (criterion: Mission, tasks and strategy) states that Missions, tasks and strategy are in line with SMART characteristics.

Although SMART is a known tool in organization management, there are also different systems (like SWOT analysis) competing with these criteria. Also, stakeholders reading the Accreditation Standards might not be familiar with the content of this abbreviation. Instead of using one concrete system as a basis for criteria, we recommend giving a broader and more generally applicable explanation of general requirements for mission, tasks and strategy of HEIs. One possibility would be to say that missions, tasks and strategy of HEIs have to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related. The means or tools by which to measure the compliance to these criteria could thus be left to the autonomy of HEIs.

11. Part 3 of the draft Accreditation Standards (criterion: Human Resources) is primarily focused on assessing the present situation, like existence of necessary qualifications and motivation/support mechanisms of teaching staff. The question of future sustainability of studies (e.g. potential aftergrowth of teaching staff) is not addressed in these criteria.

We recommend adding to the criteria for teaching staff also requirements for future sustainability. An example might be taken from the Accreditation Manual, which includes a following requirement: The distribution of full-time teaching staff by age and qualifications facilitates the sustainability of studies in a certain study area.

12. According to clause 1.2 of the ESG, institutions should have processes for the design and approval of their programs. The programs should be designed so that they meet the objectives set for them, including the intended learning outcomes. This should serve the overall objective of student-centered learning established in clause 1.3 of the ESG.

Requirements included in part 4 of the draft Accreditation Standards (criterion: Education Programs) currently focus on assessment of conformity to formal requirements. Overall quality (and constant improvement) of study programs and their design has not been included in these criteria.

In order to ensure conformity with the ESG requirements, it is strongly advisable to review the criteria for education programs in the light of the ESG and the Accreditation Manual. We recommend adding to part 4 of the Draft Standard also explicit requirements for study program design (in the part that falls within the autonomy of HEIs) including stakeholder involvement, as well as constant review and updating of these programs and clear definition of learning outcomes.

An example might be taken from clause 2.1 part IV of the Accreditation Manual (Study programs and their development):

• Programmes are designed with objectives that are in line with the institutional strategy, national standards for higher education, expectations of the society and economy, and labour market needs.
• The content of the study programme is updated in the light of the latest research in the given discipline.
• Objectives, intended learning outcomes, admission and graduation requirements of the programmes are clearly defined; qualification resulting from the programme is clearly specified, communicated and referred to the appropriate level of the national qualifications framework.
• Expected student workload is defined in ECTS.
• Practical work/internship supports the achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme.
• Up-to-date teaching materials, innovative, creative and interactive learning methods and educational technology are used in teaching and learning process.
• Study programmes are monitored and reviewed regularly; relevant stakeholders (incl. students) are involved in these processes.
• Graduate satisfaction with the quality of study programmes are surveyed and analysed; the results are considered in the development of study programmes.

6. Unexpected Results

There were no unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There were no issues left open after the Mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

In previous Mission Reports, STEs have constantly underlined the importance of active participation of the Legal Department of the MoE in the activities of Component 1. During the current Mission, an Advisor of Legal Department was present during several discussions on legal framework and showed an active interest in further participation in Mission’s activities. Such involvement must be fully recognized and strongly encouraged and promoted also during future Missions.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

There are 4 missions left in the Component 1 and it is important to consider carefully the most beneficial time for the last visits regarding legal issues. 

DRAFT Standards for the Accreditation of e-Learning Programs in Egypt

Mission report of Activity: 2.4 Steering and Coordinating and Activity 2.6a Benchmarking the Organisational Arrangements

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.4 Steering and coordinating and

Activity 2.6a Benchmarking the Organisational Arrangements

Name of the Expert: Mr Örjan Andersson (2.4), Mr.Kauko Hämäläinen and Mr Rait Toompere (2.6)

Dates of the Mission: 14-18 November 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

These missions are follow-up to Kauko Hämäläinen´s and Rait Toompere´s two earlier missions on the component 2.4, Steering and coordinating. These missions 2.4 and 2.6a are based on the recommendations of the mission dated 5-9.11.2016

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

To assist the relevant institutions to implement the recommendations, including the establishment of appropriate steering, coordinating and training bodies and/or mechanisms, organizing training, issuing rules and procedures etc.

To train experts to advice and consult the further implementation process of the EHEA in Azerbaijan within a functional domestic expert network.

In the meeting with the representatives of MoE at the beginning of the mission it was decided that we should concentrate on the following recommendations:

1. Establish a platform or platforms for enhancing cooperation and networking and
2. Establishing a Rector´s conference or conferences.

Reijo Aholainen has made a summary road map of our recommendations from last mission. Our discussions during this week are based on this list which is below:

Draft Road Map for Higher Education Institutional Arrangements

1. To create a platform could be establishing an electronic Newsletter for:
   1. Improving communication and common understanding among the stakeholders
   2. Uniting all possible parties into a single information platform
   3. Collecting information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in the Newsletter
   4. Informing on HE policy issues at the national and international level
   5. Informing about funding possibilities available for HEIs
   6. Identifying the main needs in HEIs.

The Newsletter should first become an instrument for the creation of a formalised platform. After the foundation of the platform, the Newsletter should take the role of connecting members/participants and other stakeholders.

2. To set a Coordination Group, a temporary body for the joint preparation of the Rectors’ Conference. The mission of the Coordination Group would be to create one (or more) Rectors’ Conference(s) in Azerbaijan.

• The main task of the Coordination Group should be preparing a co-operation agreement, identifying potential members, stakeholders and their possible roles and the legal status of the platform.
• In addition, the Coordination Group should keep the process going on between meetings, and take care of alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication and organising reflection and follow-up.

3. The co-operation agreement (covenant) should define the mission, the legal status, objectives, key activities and the rules of procedures (e.g. organisation, administration bodies and financing). information and communication of the platform (a Rectors’ Conference.)

• The mission of the Rectors’ Conference should be defined in terms of supporting universities by promoting co-operation between universities and with stakeholders to provide high-quality higher education and research.
• All potential members should be invited to the founding meeting.
• The co-operation agreement should be made public.
• The founding process should support ownership and sustainable functioning of the Rectors’ Conference to maintain transparency, participation and trust.
• The Rectors´ Conference should be established in some form in spring 2017.

4. The activities of the Rectors’ Conference should be financed by the member HEIs. However, during the first x years, the MoE could give financial support to the production of the electronic Newsletter and the general establishment of the Rectors’ Conference.

• The MoE should support financially the Rectors’ Conference and Azerbaijani student associations’ international activities, to ensure increasing participation in international cooperation and academic networks.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On Monday  we discussed in MoE how to proceed with establishing a Rectors’ conference. Especially, the need to involve rectors in the preparatory work was emphasized by the STEs. Representatives of MoE arranged meetings for Tuesday with two rectors; Hamlet Isaxanli of Khazar University and Jafar M. Jafarov of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University. On Thursday we discussed with the rector of Baku State University.

On Tuesday we had discussion in MoE on how to proceed in implementing the two proposals. The rules of Arene - the Rector’s Conference of Univerities of Applied Sciences in Finland were discussed. Örjan Andersson also presented cooperation models for the six universities in Vaasa.

MoE is strongly supporting the creation of a rector´s conference. It was proposed, that

• the coordination group should be nominated during this week,
• it is important to have at least one rector in the coordination group to prepare a draft for the rules,
• the initiative for starting should come from MoE and
• MoE should invite all rectors, but participation would be on a voluntary basis.

In Khazar University we met Rector Hamlet Isaxanli and two vice-rectors and two deans of different departments. The rector was very aware of the benefits of Rector’s Conferences and had own experience from Europe, having published papers on the subject. He also seemed eager to proceed and suggested a seminar later. Örjan Andersson was asked to be one of the lecturers there to tell about experiences from Finland. It was our impression that he also thought that it would be good to start on a voluntary basis.

The question of autonomy was discussed in detail in the meeting. MoE is providing curricula for all universities. However, it seems to be possible to achieve compromises, if the university has a strong opinion in favor of its own curricula. It was discussed, that power to decide on the curricula, is in general seen as characteristic for an autonomous university. The same goes for the right to award/issue degrees.

In the Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University we met Rector Jafar M. Jafarov, Vice-Rector Nigar Abbaszade and several other people from the university management. The university is the first one in Azerbaijan to have a double degree system with a foreign university and appears to be ambitious in its plans for internationalization.

The Rector was very aware of the benefits of Rectors’ Conferences. He proposed, that the tasks of a conference could be e.g. to help society to solve problems in HE and to lobby interest of the universities. I can also be a platform for discussions and for sharing experiences. He also seemed eager to proceed. It was very clear that the Rectors’ Conference has to be separate from MoE. Further, MoE should give up some of its tasks. These could instead be taken care of by the Rector’s Conference. Thus, there might be a need to study the division of responsibility and tasks between MoE and the Rectors’ Conference.

It seems that the question of autonomy also needs to be discussed among the universities, i.e. in a Rectors’ Conference. It could be an engaging topic to start from, since presumably, all rectors would find it a matter of great importance.

We met also Rector Abel M. Maharramov from Baku State University. He also thought that rectors’ conference is really needed and he promised to support it. He has very large experience in international conferences and networks, so his expertise can be useful in the future in creating rectors’ conference.

MoE has started a rectors’ conference already more than 10 years ago. Also rules of the Conference were written.  The conference had representatives from MoE and universities and the chairman was the minister of education. The conference had a couple of meetings at the beginning, but the interest faded. Some rectors told, that the main reason for closing the active work of the conference was the conflict between the ministry and universities about decision-making. This experience needs to be taken into consideration in establishing a new Rectors’ Conference.

6. Unexpected Results

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The following recommendations are based on our earlier reports, discussions during the mission and experiences from Estonia and Finland. Both establishment of a newsletter and establishment of a rector´s conference was supported by the MoE and the directors of the three universities.

1. Establishment of the Newsletter, steps for Email Marketing

1. Why an electronic newsletter is need

• Improves communication and common understanding among the stakeholders
• Connects into a single information platform all possible parties
• Collects information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in a Newsletter. Two way traffic of the information
• Informs what is in focus at the national and international level
• Informs about financing possibilities
• Identifies the main needs in HE

1. What is needed

• Coordination group
• Good communication specialist, e.g. from the MoE
• Set an owner of the Newsletter and roles of the editor

1. Find subscribers

First subscribers are employees of HE sector. They should be informed and kept up to date when it comes to external communication. Next round involves the partners / stakeholders you have already been working with.

Release web-page with newsletter sign-up form. Ask about subscribers interests (read no. 4 „Create your main topics”). Promote it (addition to articles, emails, QR-codes on leaflets, partners). Place an email newsletter sign-up link on every relevant page of your website(s).

1. Find email marketing provider

The best solution is to find local service provider (faster service, personal approach, local market awareness). Plan B is to find global service provider (more updates and modern solutions).

http://spaceedgetechnology.com/bulk-email-marketing-services-azerbaijan/

https://mailchimp.com

Build your own or use provided templates to make your newsletter attractive and easily readable. Don't overdo the design!

1. Create your main topics

Create your main topics so you can distribute your subscribers by their interest. Do not send specific newsletters to everyone! Informing everyone about everything is not your goal.

1. Create content

Rule of thumb is to keep promotional content under 20%. Other 80% is informational (updates, researches, news and events). Same goes for photos-text balance. Having a newsletter that not only promotes, but also informs subscribers about the state of your sector as a whole is a great way to establish authority in your field and make sure your emails are being read by the people to whom you send them. Use good writers!

Test your newsletter spam level with tools provided by your e-mail marketing service. You might need to adjust your photos, logos and keep the capital letters and exclamation marks at minimum. Your subscribers must be able to or unsubscribe from your messages.

Do not put whole articles in the newsletter! Use five to eight sentences and link to original article. Keep it clear and simple. Linking back to articles you have posted on your website is a great way to drive traffic and let the consumer discover your web content.

1. Use statistics, refine, be modern

Track your subscribers behavior. Create your benchmarks.

Deliverability (rate at which your contacts actually received your message) should also be tracked.

Some ideas for the future:

Newsletter is perfect addition to cross-media campaign.

Let your newsletter “expand” to social media. Launching giveaways or contests will ensure that your newsletter gets talked about.

Good, well written summary of fresh research is quite sure way to get wanted attention.

II Establishment of a Rectors’ Conference

1. Why needed

- ”WE ARE STRONGER TOGERHER”

- Helping society to solve problems in HE

- Promoting higher education policy in Azerbaijan

- Promoting cooperation between universities

- Learning from each other / Platform for discussions

- Lobbying interests of the universities

1. General principles

- Initiation should come from the Ministry of Education

- Coordination group is needed to prepare basic documents

- Conference should be independent

- People from the ministry can be invited as experts to meetings as needed.

- Each university should be represented by its rector, or in exceptional cases, by a vice-rector.  This is important for the credibility and decision-making power of the Conference.

1. How to start

- The Minister should invite rectors to a meeting to discuss how to proceed and to formulate rules. Rectors from both public and private universities should be invited.

            - A coordination group can prepare a draft for the rules

                        - Purpose of cooperation and main functions

                        - Criteria for membership

                        - Management bodies

                         - Selection of a chairman, vice chairman and secretariat

                         - Regular meetings and possible working groups

                         - Rectors can discuss about the proposal

1. How to proceed

-  Funding: Membership fees and donors. Initial funding by MoE for one or more specific projects could be considered.

- Chairman: Honourable rector

- On a voluntary basis

- Strongly motivated rectors are members

- Permanent secretariat at the beginning in one of the universities

We suggest that in order to motivate and get the process running, MoE may consider giving the Rectors Conference specific tasks, e.g. preparing paper on aligning the HE sector in Azerbaijan with the European one, developing autonomy etc. The idea is to have topics that are of great importance and interest for the rectors, the universities and MoE. MoE may also consider providing funding (1-2 years) for this; for motivation, as a statement of importance and to speed up the process.  

In Finland the Rectors’ Conference Arene started from a number of concrete projects and development needs common to all universities of applied sciences. Projects were separately funded by MoE, which made it possible to employ people and establish the Rector’s Conference office.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The recommendations above were presented in the Open seminar on Thursday. Also experiences of rector conference in Finland (ARENE) were presented. There were over 20 participants in the seminar. Almost all the participants supported the establishment of a rector´s conference in Azerbaijan and our recommendations.

Arene – The Rectors' Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences