The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) organized a panel discussion on the report of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and the exclusion of the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control from full membership. The ENQA report drew attention to the problems in the process of accreditation of higher education institutions in Serbia, which the professional public drew attention to before, but they did not receive more attention until the publication of this report. The Serbian public has been discussing a lot about the possible consequences of this suspension for students, faculties and higher education as a whole. MASA draws attention to the aspects of this report that burden the current process of accreditation of higher education programs, represent a risk for the impartiality of the accreditation process and threaten the achieved international status of universities in Serbia and their students in the long term.
The panel discussion was held on November 18, 2020. at 12:00, and the participants were:
Prof. Jelena Kočović, full professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, director of the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control in Higher Education.
Prof. Nebojša Janićijević, full professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, member of the Commission for Accreditation and Quality Control in the period from 2006 to 2013.
Prof. Marko Simendić, associate professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade.
While the moderator was assistant professor Oliver Tošković, assistant professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
In accordance with the mentioned problems, the panel discussion covered the following topics:
- Legal solutions that enable the direct interference of the RS Government and the relevant minister in the work of the highest bodies that regulate higher education in Serbia: the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control and the National Council for Higher Education.
- The role of the National Council for Higher Education in the accreditation process, which in the appeal process can provide accreditation to institutions that do not meet the requirements or, by delaying the process, enable the implementation of programs rejected by NAT. This topic is particularly important since the ENQA report points out that the independence of accreditation decision-making by NAT is threatened in this way.
- Deficiencies in the quality control process, which the ENQA report insists on, allow accreditation to be granted to institutions that fictitiously meet the requirements of the same, or run programs that are not in accordance with the accreditation obtained. Within this topic, special attention was given to the relationship between the loss of membership in ENQA and the recognition of Serbian diplomas in EU countries, as well as the length of visits of review commissions to higher education institutions. Also, within this topic, we questioned the (lack of) transparency of the accreditation process, the status of the NAT director, that is, we touched on the question of whether it should be a full-time person or, as before, a person already engaged in a higher education institution.
- The cost of the accreditation process.
During the forum, the participants pointed out that at the time of the formation of NAT, the higher education system in Serbia already had the status under the supervision of ENQA, and the status of full membership had previously been lost by KAPK. The newly formed NAT started its work in September 2018, while the external inspection of ENQA was carried out in October 2019, and that there was not enough time to correct all the deficiencies. Nevertheless, NAT has introduced several changes in the accreditation process, which include a five-member review committee composed of three professors, one expert from practice and a student, the inclusion of a student in the Board of Directors, and three thematic analyses, the preparation of which continues.
Since ENQA pointed out that the independence of NAT is threatened, this body on 18.11.2020. submitted to the Ministry a proposal for the Law on Accreditation. The key problem is Article 12 of the Law on Higher Education, according to which the National Council for Higher Education determines the list of reviewers. The new draft law states that it is necessary for NAT to announce a competition for reviewers, determine the criteria and create a list of reviewers. The ENQA report states that there is influence of the government through the National Council for Higher Education (NEC) because seven members of this body are government representatives, and that the NEC further influences NAT through the Board of Directors and the selection of members of the Accreditation Commission. The forum participants agree with ENQA's remark and state that 130 persons applied for participation in the Accreditation Commission, and that NSVO chose 25. The position is that NAT's expert body chooses someone else. In the new proposal to amend the law, it is stated that NAT should announce a competition for the Commission.
The appeals procedure is cited as a special problem. The secondary authority during accreditation is NSVO, which in the last instance can change the decision of the Accreditation Commission as an expert body of NAT. That appeal procedure according to the ENQA rules must be within NAT. Thus, the proposal to amend the Law on Accreditation is the formation of an expert body in the form of an appeal commission, which would be composed of independent, moral and experienced experts, including experts from abroad. It is emphasized that NAT should adopt standards for accreditation. The participants in the discussion pointed out that the members of the Board of Directors should be appointed by the assembly, as well as the structure of the Board of Directors should be changed, so that two members are proposed by the conference of universities and the conference of high schools, one member each comes from the chamber of commerce and the ministry, as well as from the ranks students.
However, it is stated that so far NAT has only had two disagreements with NSVO, and that the review commissions are responsible for accreditation, not the Board of Directors or the director of NAT. Certainly, the fact that NSVO accepted 85% appeals, which contradicts the decision of the Accreditation Commission, is worrying. Some of those decisions explicitly state that, despite the fact that they do not meet all standards, the NSVO gave another chance to certain institutions. Therefore, even though the Commission determined that the institutions did not meet the standards, and the NSVO fully agreed with that, the institution would, despite the unfulfilled standards, still receive a work permit in the end. This is exactly the problem that ENQA pointed out in its report.
As far as the review process is concerned, the participants agree that there should be a permanent open competition for foreign reviewers. They see as one of the big problems the fact that there are currently five clerks working in the NAT itself who are in charge of around 800 cases.
