Quality cycle

General

The Education Quality Council has been mandated by the Academic Council to periodically formally assess the quality of individual study programmes and to record this assessment in a quality assurance decision. The purpose of the Education Quality Council (KRO) is thus to take a formal decision on behalf of the institution's management about the quality and functioning of a study programme. With this, the institutional board assumes final responsibility for the quality of the study programmes. This formal decision is the final component in the quality cycle and indicates the degree of confidence in the policy-making capacity of the programme.

Quality assurance decision

The KRO takes its decision on the basis of a dossier of the programme. This dossier consists of existing documents:

•  the report of the recent Peer Review (or, if applicable, a recent report of an external review body),
•  the strategy plan,
•  the proposal of public information,
•  programme-related data from central monitoring instruments, and
•  the reports of the course council of the last year.

The KRO deliberates on the basis of this dossier. A representative of the faculty concerned is heard if the faculty so requests. The KRO takes a formal quality assurance decision which can take three forms: “Good", "Satisfactory with recommendations" or "Unsatisfactory":

Quality assurance decision 'Good’ - If the KRO establishes that the quality of educationis actively monitored by the responsible programme council, the KRO awards a positive decision, 'Good'. Thus, the KRO confirms its confidence in the study programme. The programme can continue its planned policy and can therefore continue to implement the strategy plan without substantial revision. The KRO can make suggestions if required. The public information is submitted to the Academic Council and published on the website. An interim follow-up meeting with Education and Student Affairs is planned three years after the Peer Review has taken place (see c) and a new Peer Review is planned.

Quality assurance decision ‘Satisfactory with recommendations” - If the KRO determines that the quality of education is being actively monitored by the responsible programme council but, on the basis of the information collected, feels that urgent action is needed, a study programme receives a positive decision with conditions 'Satisfactory with recommendations'. The KRO then includes specific recommendations in the strategy plan that must be addressed by the study programme as a priority. These priority recommendations are also included in the public information that is approved by the Academic Council before it is published. During the internal follow-up interview after 3 years, the study programme is expected to provide an evaluation of the implementation of the strategy plan with a focus on the priority recommendations, as well as an updated strategy plan for the next 3 years. The results of the follow-up interview are submitted to the KRO. The KRO takes a new 'Good' or 'Unsatisfactory' quality assurance decision based on this. If the decision is "Good", a Peer Review is scheduled three years after the internal follow-up, and if it is "Unsatisfactory", binding measures are imposed.

Quality assurance decision 'Unsatisfactory’ - If the KRO determines that the quality of the study programme is insufficiently monitored by the relevant programme council, the KRO takes the decision 'Unsatisfactory'. The KRO proposes one or more of the following mandatory measures to the Academic Council:

• A guidance committee is appointed, consisting of internal and possibly also external experts, who draw up an improvement plan together with the study programme and supervise the implementation of that plan. The internal supervisory committee reports on progress to the KRO. The KRO takes a new quality assurance decision within two years at the latest.
• The study programme is screened in the next year by an ad hoc panel of external experts. The result of the external review is submitted to the KRO, which makes a new quality assurance decision based on this within 2 years of the first decision.

If, according to the KRO, there is a major substantive quality problem that affects the value of the diploma awarded, the study programme is temporarily frozen.

Composition

The KRO has the following members:

• Chairman: Prof. Dr. Em. Yvette Michotte (until the end of 2022)
• 4 ZAP members, not members of the Academic Council (appointed by the Education Council):
  • Prof. Dr. Gustaaf Cornelis (MILO/LW) 
  • Prof. Dr. Nikolaos Deligiannis (WE/IR)  
  • Prof. Dr. Marie-Anne Guerry (ES) 
  • Prof. Dr. Eric Kerckhofs (LK) 
• 1 ATP member with educational expertise: Dr. Céline Cocquyt
• 1 AAP/BAP member (appointed by the Education Council): Dr. Arne Van Antwerpen (AAP, WE)
• 1 student (appointed by the Student Council)
• 2 external members (on the proposal of the Vice Rector for Education and Student Affairs)
• Secretary: Mr Wim Van Gorp (OS)
• Acting Member Head of Department for Quality Assurance and Educational Professionalisation: Dr. Steven Van Luchene

Responsibilities

The Education Quality Council is responsible for:

• periodically determining the quality of the individual study programmes on the basis of the various elements of the VUB quality cycle;
• recording the findings of each study programme in a formal quality guarantee decision and a proposal for public information to the Academic Council;
• proposing binding measures to the Academic Council if the quality of a study programme is unsatisfactory;
• advising the Academic Council on questions of revision of already published public information;  
• proposing themes for university-wide analyses to the Academic Council;
• carrying out an urgent quality assessment at the request of the Vice Rector for Education.
• reflecting regularly on the quality cycle of VUB and making possible revision proposals to the Academic Council.

What is public information?

The information on our educational quality is publicly available. The relevant information is collected in these pages to provide a clear picture of how quality is ensured and monitored.

In addition, each individual study programme has publicly accessible information that reflects the quality of the programme. We call this 'public information'. This information sheet contains concise descriptions of the study programme's strengths and mentions priority actions and development opportunities.

Public information on the study programme

Specifically, you will find the following information on the sheet:

• the date of publication or of the last update of information
• a timeline of the quality cycle of the study programme: date of the last peer review/external visit, date of the last focus discussion with students, date of the last benchmark, date of the last professional field survey, date of the next peer review/external visit
• a link to the website of Educational quality where more information on the VUB quality cycle can be found 
• a brief description of the strengths of the study programme
• a brief description of the development opportunities of the study programme
• a brief description of priority action points on which the study programme is or will be working.

Where can the public information be found?

The public information sheet can be found on the programme page of the relevant study programme, via the 'quality tab'.

Why?

The Flemish Quality Assurance System for higher education assigns a crucial role to information about the quality of education that must be made public. Universities and colleges of higher education are given more autonomy than before to guarantee the quality of their own study programmes, but this is balanced by a clear duty of accountability: each institution is required by decree to be transparent about the quality of its study programmes. A sufficient amount of correct information on the quality of education must be made publicly available for each study programme. In the words of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Quality Care Decree:

­"Transparency within the system and towards broader society is an essential part of the quality assurance system. The obligation for institutions to make information on the quality of study programmes public is one of the quality­features. Thus, making information public will also be subject to constant review in the new system."

How does public information come about?

Public information is drawn up as soon as the report of a peer review or an external review committee is available, according to this roadmap:

1. The quality assurance officer prepares a first draft.
2. The quality assurance officer sends the draft to the course council no later than three working weeks after the finalisation of the report of the peer review/the external review committee.
3. The course council discusses and finalises the draft for public information and submits it (as part of the programme dossier) to the Education Quality Council (KRO).
4. The Education Quality Council discusses and finalises a final version of the public information and provides the final text to the Academic Council.
5. The Academic Council ratifies the text and has the public information published by OS.

The public information is updated as standard after three years, based on the mid-term follow-up interview between OS and the educational institution. In addition, course councils can ask the KRO to update the public information on their own initiative. Such a request consists of a brief but motivated explanation of the requested changes. The KRO then takes a decision on the changes, which are ratified by the Academic Council.

What sources is the information based on?

The tone of the text is constructive. The stated strengths, development opportunities, and action points can be traced back to at least one of the following sources:

• previous public information
• the report of the peer and its possible discussion in the course council;
• the SWOT analysis carried out by the study programme in preparation for the peer review;
• the results from the student and/or the most recent focus discussion with students and the possible discussion thereof during the course council meeting;
• the results from the latest benchmarking, professional field survey and/or alumni questionnaire and the possible discussion thereof during the course council meeting;
• reports of the course council;
• the (draft) strategic plan of the study programme