(Initial) Accreditation

Introduction to (initial) accreditation

General overview

The accreditation procedures of the Netherlands and Flanders relate to both accreditation and initial accreditation. Accreditation concerns programmes that are already offered by institutions and which are registered in the official register of recognised programmes in the Netherlands (i.e. CROHO) and in Flanders (i.e. Higher Education Register). Initial accreditation concerns programmes that are not yet offered and/or which are not registered in the official registers of recognised programmes mentioned above.  

The Dutch and Flemish (initial) accreditation systems contain the following elements:

1. Assessment frameworks for (initial) accreditation consisting of themes, standards and criteria linked with assessment rules;
2. A description of equivalence in the case of an international accreditation (only applies for Flanders);
3. Protocols for research master and extended master's programmes (only applies for the Netherlands).

These elements are described below.

1. Frameworks for (initial) accreditation

When drawing up the frameworks, NVAO had to take into account the assessment criteria previously stipulated in Dutch and Flemish legislation. Based on these, a number of themes with underlying standards and criteria were formulated.

NVAO applies different frameworks for the Netherlands and Flanders both for accreditation and initial accreditation. However, these frameworks have been made as similar as possible. Differences mainly stem from differences in the higher education systems of the Netherlands and Flanders rather then differences in quality standards.
The quality standards and the assessment rules are almost identical in both frameworks. To accommodate to the diversity of programmes offered both in the Netherlands and Flanders and the autonomy of institutions, NVAO refrained from drawing up detailed and normative/prescriptive frameworks. On the contrary, these frameworks have been conceived to be all-purpose and accessible.

The Dutch and Flemish (initial) accreditation frameworks were designed after consultation with representatives of institutions and programmes and experts involved in assessment procedures. A specific section of the Flemish accreditation framework relates to the possibility of recognising the equivalence of an accreditation decision by an international organisation. For the Netherlands, there are supplementary protocols for research master’s programmes and for extended master’s programmes.

A. The accreditation frameworks
The accreditation framework for the Netherlands (14 February 2003) and the accreditation framework for Flanders (14 February 2005) (see this page) are the frameworks that are used to assess programmes that are already offered and registered. The accreditation framework for the Netherlands consists of 6 themes and 21 standards and is applicable to the four types of bachelor and master’s programmes offered in the Netherlands. The framework for Flanders consists of 6 themes and 23 standards and is applicable to the three types of programmes offered in Flanders.
The assessment panel assesses all standards on a four-points scale: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good and excellent. Standards that are assessed ‘unsatisfactory’ can – if substantiated – be compensated within one theme. However, each theme as a whole has to be rated ‘satisfactory’.

B. The initial accreditation frameworks
The initial accreditation framework for the Netherlands (14 February 2003) and the initial accreditation framework for Flanders (14 February 2005) (see this page) are the frameworks that are used to assess programme proposals or programmes that are not officially registered. The initial accreditation framework for the Netherlands consists of 6 themes subdivided into 19 standards. It is applicable to the four types of programmes offered in the Netherlands. The initial accreditation framework for Flanders consists of the same 6 themes and 21 standards and is applicable to the three types of programmes offered in Flanders. The standards need to be assessed by the panel on a two-points scale: "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory". This is normally a more limited "ex ante" assessment, as a more extensive assessment of the learning outcomes cannot yet be undertaken.

Differences between accreditation and initial accreditation frameworks

The main difference between the accreditation and the initial accreditation frameworks concerns the final theme. In the accreditation frameworks the last theme is "Results" and in the initial accreditation framework it is "Conditions for continuity". In the case of a programme that is already offered, it is important to assess whether it achieves its previously set aims and objectives, i.e. its intended learning outcomes. In the case of a new programme, it is important to assess whether an institution is sufficiently solvent and whether sufficient financial resources are invested in the programme. In addition, the new programme is also assessed on the basis of the guarantee offered to students that they will be able to complete the programme.

Characteristics of the frameworks

The NVAO frameworks can be characterised as universal and accessible. The standards and criteria were formulated to be highly abstract rather than rigid and constraining. This was a conscious choice that was based on the feedback from the consultative meetings with the institutions during the initial phase of NVAO. In leaving the frameworks open for interpretation, NVAO desired to accommodate the autonomy of institutions and programmes. In this way, institutions are able to elaborate their educational concept themselves and can position themselves more effectively within the higher education sector. At the same time, quality assessment agencies are given the liberty to make professional assessments.

2. Equivalence of international accreditation decisions in Flanders

In Flanders, institutions may have been granted a positive accreditation decision for a programme by an agency located outside Flanders. This accreditation decision can be used to submit an application for accreditation directly to NVAO. NVAO can recognise this positive accreditation decision as equivalent and thus grant accreditation. Conditions for equivalence of international accreditation decisions are included in the Accreditation Framework for Flanders.
In the Netherlands such an equivalence decision is not possible. To have their programme accredited, institutions can submit a report from an international accreditation organisation as if it were a report from a quality assessment agency that does not appear on the list of quality assessment agencies in the Netherlands.

3. Protocols  for research master's programmes and extended master's programmes in the Netherlands

At the request of the State Secretary for Education in the Netherlands, a separate protocol was developed for providing advice on research master's programmes. This protocol describes how the initial accreditation framework should be implemented when assessing a research master's programme. NVAO wrote this protocol in close cooperation with the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). An additional requirement is that the research master's programme should be specifically aimed at exceptional students. Another requirement is that the curriculum should be taught and composed by prominent researchers with a proven record in the field of research and with a well-functioning research environment at their disposal.

To assess these programmes on quality, NVAO draws on the expertise of KNAW. For that purpose, KNAW has set up several committees that advice on programmes within a specific discipline of the sciences.
Research master's programmes always take two academic years to be completed. The same applies for some other master’s programmes as well, where one academic year is insufficient to complete the programme. For these programmes, NVAO has developed two separate assessment protocols. The first protocol concerns programmes in the field of comparative international law and programmes in the field of linguistics and culture where an extended study is needed for language acquisition. The second protocol concerns master’s programmes that need two academic years to attain the desired learning outcomes that are internationally acceptable or that are necessary to meet the requirements of the professional practice.