Formerly the EEAA

Annual Internal Review, Improvement and Monitoring Report form

To be used by the ECTE Council as a self-evaluation exercise for the Annual Internal Review, Improvement and Monitoring session. Completed reports will be published in the Council/staff area (reserved)

A draft report will be prepared by the General Secretary and presented for discussion and finalisation each Spring Council meeting.  Reports from the rest of the staff will be included in this general report.

Annual Internal Review, Improvement and Monitoring Report

ECTE Annual Internal Review, Improvement and Monitoring Report

Nature of report
Indicate year

ESG 2.1 – Consideration of internal quality assurance

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.1a - Have the internal quality assurance processes of institutions in relation to Standards and Guidelines been judged satisfactory in Review Reports? (GS)
2.1b - Have institutions demonstrated compliance with standard A.2.5 of Standards and Guidelines (Internal QA policies and procedures)? Were there recommendations or requirements in this area from the Review Reports? (GS)
2.1c - To what degree have stakeholders been involved in our institutions as laid out in the Stakeholder Involvement and Extension Policy in compliance to standards A.2.5 and B.2.1 (involvement of indirect stakeholders, both internal and external)?(RS)
2.1d - Have we updated statistical information in the Key Facts sheets of Introducing the ECTE? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 2.2 – Designing methodologies fit for purpose

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.2a - Are ECTE’s stakeholders satisfied with our work and methodology? What data has emerged from surveys of HEIs, students, VETS and other stakeholders? (GS)
2.2b - Have we responded to new developments and regulations in cross-border professional accreditation in the EHEA? (GS)
2.2c - Have we made appropriate changes to our methodologies? Were any changes made explicitly following stakeholder input? (GS)
2.2d - Have students been involved in our governance and work? (GS)
2.2e - Has Visitation Feedback been collected from institutions and VETs following all visits? (RS)
2.2f - Have our site visits been evaluated positively in the Visitation Feedback forms? (RS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB

ESG 2.3 – Implementing processes

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.3a -Have all procedures have we completed followed the ‘SER-visit-report-decision-follow-up’ accreditation cycle? (AD)
2.3b - Have the Review Reports been produced to the standards set in Guidelines in Site Visits and VETs? (RS)
2.3c - Have we been consistent in our decisions? (AD)
2.3d - Have we been consistent in our follow-up? (AD)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 2.4 - Peer-review experts

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.4a - Have we recruited VETs in consideration of the breadth of expertise? Do we need to broaden perspectives in the VET pool? (AD)
2.4b - Have we trained our VETs as outlined in the VET Development Policy? Is there a need to train them in specific issues? (AD and GS)
2.4c - Has the Visitation Feedback been discussed with VETs following visitations with recommendations made by the AD for good practice and areas of improvement? (AD)
2.4d -Have all VETs signed no-conflict of interest and independence forms? Have there been issues of concern around independence? (GS and AD)
2.4e - Have we recruited, trained and deployed student VETs in each site visit? (RS)
2.4f - Has the Review Secretary role functioned as planned? (RS)
2.4g - Have we briefed the VETs for improvement following the Visitation Feedback on each site visit? (AD)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 2.5 - Criteria for outcomes

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.5a - Are all our key documents related to standards and criteria updated and published? (GS)
2.5b - Have all our accreditation decisions been made on the basis of Review Reports and documentary evidence? (AD)
2.5c - Has follow up consistently distinguished requirements and recommendations? (AD)
2.5d - Have our VETs demonstrated understanding of consistency of interpretation of ECTE criteria? (AD)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 2.6 - Reporting

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.6a - Have we published all full Review Reports? (GS) related to standards and criteria updated and published? (GS)
2.6b - Have we published all decisions? (GS)
2.6c -Have institutions signed off all Review Reports? (RS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 2.7 - Complaints and appeals

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
2.7a - Have we dealt satisfactorily with complaints and appeals? (GS)
2.7b - Have we acted on input indicating the need to revise our complaints and appeals procedures? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.1 – Activities, policy and processes for QA

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.1a -Are we achieving our stated goals and objectives, as outlined in section 1.3 of Introducing the ECTE? (GS)
3.1b - Are we achieving our strategic plans, and making progress on the decisions made by General Assemblies? (GS)
3.1c - Does the description of our scope and daily work correspond to section 2 of Introducing the ECTE? Is revision necessary? (GS)
3.1d - Have we implemented our Stakeholder Involvement and Extension Policy? (GS)
3.1e -Have we updated Introducing the ECTE, especially the Fact Sheets?
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.2 - Official status

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.2a - Is the public description of our official status current? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.3 - Independence

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.3a - Is our Independence and Conflict of Interest Policy still adequate? (GS)
3.3b - Do we have signed No Conflict of Interest Declaration forms from all Council, staff and VETs? (GS)
3.3c - Are we satisfied with how we have dealt with situations relative to independence? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.4 - Thematic analysis

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.4a - Are we fulfilling our Thematic Analysis Strategic Plan? (GS)
3.4b -Are we following up on action points from previous TAs? (GS)
3.4c - Have we collected data in APRs as planned? (GS)
3.4d - Have we published TAs? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.5 - Resources

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.5a - Is the budget balanced and fees adequate? (T)
3.5b - Have we been audited and has the budget been signed off by the General Assembly? (T)
3.5c - Have staff submitted their Annual Staff review?
3.5d - Is the staff completing the tasks set out in the Staff Policy as related to supporting ESG standards?
3.5e - Are staff workloads adequate?
Drawn from the Chairman report
3.5f - Are our operational resources adequate to support our activities? (GS)
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.6 - Internal QA and professional conduct

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.6a - Are we satisfied with our progress in internal QA and professional conduct?
3.6b - Are we satisfied with our QA policies as outlined in section 4 of Introducing the ECTE?
3.6c - Have we followed up on the action points from last year's AIRIM?
Indicate action taken as follow up from last year's AIRIM report
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

ESG 3.7 - Cyclical external review of agencies

(Fully compliant=3, Substantially compliant=2,Non compliant=1)
3.7a - Have we made progress on following up requirements and recommendations from our last external review?
3.7b - Have we established a timeline to prepare for the next cyclical review and are we on track?
Indicate plans for improvement in areas of lower compliance

Reports

Individual reports from other staff members on which the evaluations of this report are drawn.
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB
Questions addressed in the report: Have we been consistent in our accreditation decisions? Have we been consistent in our follow-up? Have all our accreditation decisions been made on the basis of Review Reports and documentary evidence? Has follow up consistently distinguished requirements and recommendations ?
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB
Questions addressed in the report: Have our site visits been evaluated positively in the Visitation Feedback forms? Have the Review Reports been produced to the standards set in Guidelines in Site Visits and VETs? Have we recruited VETs in consideration of the breadth of expertise? Do we need to broaden perspectives in the VET pool? Have we trained our VETs as outlined in the VET Development Policy? Is there a need to train them in specific issues? Have we recruited, trained and deployed student VETs in each site visit? Has the Review Secretary role functioned as planned? Have institutions signed off all Review Reports? Have we briefed the VETs for improvement following the Visitation Feedback on each visit?
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB
Questions addressed in the report: Is the budget balanced and fees adequate? Have we been audited and has the budget been signed off by the General Assembly? Please provide a budget report for 2020
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB
Questions addressed in the report: Have we made progress on following up requirements and recommendations from our last external review? Are we nearer to full compliance? (this question can be waived as this is our first review) Have we established a timeline to prepare for the next cyclical review and are we on track?
Maximum upload size: 268.44MB
Questions addressed in the report: Have staff members submitted their Annual Staff Reviews? Have the reviews been satisfactory? Are there 'big picture' issues to address with human resources? Are 'single issues' to address with particular staff members?