Recommendations on steering and coordinating by STEs Mr Kauko Hämäläinen, Mr Rait Toompere

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)

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 2.4. Steering and Coordinating by short term experts Mr Kauko Hämäläinen and Mr Rait Toompere

9 September, 2016

Recommendations for Future Missions

Recommendation 1: Establishing a platform or platforms for better networking

There is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education to develop the level of higher education. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Better coordination and networking could be helpful in enhancing HE.

Improving communication requires a platform, which could be a permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders.

The tasks of the platform could be the following:

• To promote higher education policy and practice e.g.
  • Mobility and recognition
  • Graduate employability and labor market relevance
  • Learning outcomes
  • Intenal and external evaluations
  • Lifelong learning / professional development
  • Strenghtening involment of stakeholders
• To support structural changes, e.g. creating joint study programs and merging universities or programs

• To support the development of
  • (work-oriented) teaching,
  • high level and relevant research and
  • innovations

Roadmap how to proceed

The establishment of an electronic Newsletter could be the first step to create a platform. The tasks of a Newsletter can be:

• Improving communication and common uderstanding among the stakeholders
• Uniting into a single information platform all possible parties
• Collecting information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in a Newsletter
• Informing what is in focus at the national and international level
• Informing about financing possibilities
• Identifying the main needs in HE

Successful launch of the Newsletter helps in creating formalised platform(s).

Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Platform Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Platform Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Recommendation 2: Establishing Rector´s conference

Azerbaijan has examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

Rector´s conferences have been working very effectively in many countries. They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is normally to influence higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation. So summary of the tasks is:

• To promote common interests of universities
• To influence higher education and research policy
• To support international co-operation
• To develop the European Higher Education Area to meet European standardsDeclaration of quality (mutual recognition)
• Organizing study-related/scientific conferences, workshops and symposiums

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds of HEIs. In practice it can be motivating for HEIs if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

Examples of the tasks of the conferences in AZ can be as follows:

• To provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation
• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities
• to promote international cooperation
• to learn good practices from each others

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources.

Members can be rectors of universities or universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members). Rectors are normally representatives of universities in the meetings.

Network can start at voluntary basis with those who are willing to join and which are under MoE. Their rectors together with representatives from MoE can write the first regulations for it as well as strategy for next 2-4 years. Later they can accept more members.

Regulations should include at least the following topics:

• Purpose of cooperation
• Main functions
• Criteria for membership
• Funding
• Management bodies and structure
• Selection of chairman, vice-chairman, secretariat
• Regular meetings and possible working groups

At the beginning it could be good, if MoE can support new rector´s conferences economically, but later universities could pay a member fee and organize conferences, seminars etc. to collect the money needed for the budget of the networks. How much each member is paying can depend on the size of a university.

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). It can include e.g. the President / Chairman and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. (One year can be too short for effective working). Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings can be hold e.g. once a month or even more often, if something urgent must be prepared.

It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Recommendation 3: Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005. Many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people.

Universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities).

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication. One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons.

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above. Rector´s conference can be one forum to plan and implement local cooperation.

Recommendation 4: Increasing participation in international cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Roadmap how to proceed

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

Student organisations need financial support to participate in international cooperation.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

MoE could also analyse marketing needs of Azerbaijan higher education and be up to date on activities what other countries are doing. Azerbaijan is very progressive country in its international presentation. You have organized many events of World and European importance. Higher education could be also very good reason to promote Azerbaijan as a good study destination together with rich culture, beautiful country and nice people.  It`s useful to join regularly EAIE and NAFSA events, what are the World biggest higher education fairs, to get good ideas, join international workshops and ensure large visibility of Azerbaijan higher education.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Results from the Open seminar

In the Open seminar recommendations above was discussed. Mainly recommendations for a new newsletter and cteation a rectors´ conference was discussed. All participant agreed that it is important to develop both of them.  Time seems to be ripe and right to get started. General opinion seemed to be, that universities are stronger together than anole.

The following questions were raised:

• Who are representing universities, only rectors or also other professionals e.g. deans or directors of some units?
• Is participation voluntary or mandatory at the beginning?
• Where will the office be (in a university, in different building e.g.)
• Who decides the focus of the network?
• What can the legal status of the conference be?
• Can stakeholders from industry or from other stakeholder groups be partners in the conference?
• How the new network should be called (association, conference etc.)?

It is good now to go on planning the regulations together with representatives from HEIs. During our next visit the we could analyse and reflect the next version. A new rector´s conference could start in some form already at the beginning of next year. Also the planning of the newsletter could be started in MoE with the help of STEs of this Twinning project.

There were very positive cooperation between representatives from MoE, project organization and STEs. There were clear need to develop networking, especially recrtor´s conference and newsletter mentioned in 8.

Mission report of Activity 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

Name of the Expert: Ms Kirsi Hiltunen, Ms Hannele Keränen

Dates of the Mission: 26-30 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in this work has been the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Twinning project offers the opportunity for applying the ESG in Azerbaijani higher education. One of the mandatory results of the project is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan (AzSG) in line with the ESG and test them with three higher education institutions.

A Drafting Group was appointed by the Ministry of Education in April 2016 to work on a proposal for the Azerbaijani Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The drafting group consisted of representatives from Azerbaijani universities, the Ministry of Education and students as well as Finnish and Estonian experts. The Accreditation and Nostrification Office also joined in the work of the drafting group. Based on the ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, interviews in previous missions and discussions with different stakeholders, the first proposal for AzSG (including the description of the overall framework, the evaluation process, assessment areas and criteria) was drafted.

The main aims of the pilot evaluations were also set: to support the strategic management of institutions, to provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the institutions’ quality assurance with the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have an institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide pilot institutions with information regarding their strengths and good practices as well as recommendations for institutions’ further development.

The first draft of the manual was discussed with the Advisory Group in a seminar on 1 June 2016. After the discussion, the Twinning Office published the draft on its website in order to get written feedback on the assessment areas and criteria. The feedback was considered by STEs and other relevant actors in August, and necessary amendments were made on the manual. It was concluded that as the enhancement-oriented approach is new for Azerbaijani higher education institutions, there is a need for further seminars and trainings which will be provided for the pilot institutions in autumn 2016.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them in three higher education institutions. The objective of the Activity 4.4 is to support the capacity to conduct a self-evaluation for the external evaluation in the pilot institutions. In accordance with the needs expressed in former missions, another objective of the mission is to support the capacity of the pilot institutions to develop their internal quality assurance.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Three trainings were held according to the plan at Azerbaijan Technical University, Azerbaijan State Economic University and Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University. The trainings consisted of an introduction to AzSG and evaluation process for the pilot evaluations, foundation for self-evaluation and examples of developing internal quality assurance in Finnish higher education institutions. Good practices from Finland were also introduced by STEs and discussed with the participants.

There were approximately 20 participants in each training. The participants wanted to know more about the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan and they asked a lot of questions related to the assessment areas and criteria, the composition and operating principles of the evaluation group and materials related to the evaluation. The participants were also given a group assignment related to how to organize the self-evaluation process and who to involve in the self-evaluation process in the University in question. Through this assignment the participants got acquainted with the new AzSG.

STEs gave a detailed introduction to the overall framework of the AzSG, the aims of the pilot evaluations and the evaluation process as a whole (the composition and the code of ethics of the evaluation group, self-evaluation report and other material required from the institutions, site visit and the evaluation report). STEs and participants had lively discussions on the aims the pilot evaluations, the assessment areas and the criteria, and the composition of the evaluation group. Some participants voiced their concerns whether specific features in the Azerbaijani Higher Education System would be taken into consideration by the evaluation groups in the pilot evaluations. The STEs explained that in each evaluation group there will be three Azerbaijani experts with good knowledge of the Azerbaijani context. Furthermore, all evaluation groups will be trained by the Twinning project team.

The main aim of the trainings was to foster the capacity to conduct a self-evaluation for the external evaluation. The STEs asked participants to share their prior experiences and benefits of self-evaluations. Participants were able to recognize the advantages of self-evaluations. They also presented various forms of self-evaluation and mechanisms they have in place at the moment for both internal and external quality assurance. For instance, they provided examples of the mechanisms for collecting student feedback, after which there was a discussion on how to utilize the feedback in order to develop degree programmes. Yet the STEs got the impression that there might be some challenges in producing a reflective self-evaluation. STEs emphasized that in accordance with the principles of enhancement-oriented evaluation strengths and good practices will be identified in addition to providing recommendations for further development in the pilot evaluations. 

Participants were also given some examples of internal quality assurance in Finnish higher education institutions. This triggered a lively discussion on the meaning of internal quality assurance. The importance of strategic planning and management (assessment areas I Strategic Planning and II Management) were highlighted and participants were given examples of internal quality assurance related to these assessment areas. Internal quality assurance related to the assessment areas III Human Resources, IV Study Programmes and their development, and V Students was also discussed. STEs also clarified that in the pilots the focus is on the processes and procedures to ensure and improve the quality of institution’s operations, and therefore there will not be for example tests for students. 

STEs pointed out that when a higher education institution has more autonomy over the study programmes and their development, the more sophisticated internal quality assurance procedures and processes are needed. Increased autonomy also requires a paradigm change from external control to internal empowerment, adopting the principles of continuous improvement (such as implementing the plan-do-check-act cycle) and involving the key stakeholders, such as employees, students and external stakeholders, in continuous development.  This paradigm change may take up from 5 to 7 years and requires commitment to the principles of enhancement-oriented evaluation.

Based on the trainings, the STEs noticed that there are different understandings of the purpose of external evaluations. There is also a need to enhance the capacity of internal quality assurance in the pilot institutions.

6. Unexpected Results

There was great interest among some participants of the trainings to participate in the pilot evaluations as Azerbaijani members in the evaluation groups.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

1) FINEEC’s and EKKA’s Project Managers for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

2) Pilot universities’ Contact Persons for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

3) Evaluation groups for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

4) Timetable for the pilot evaluations should be agreed with the pilot universities. The most urgent issue is to agree with the pilot universities when the site visits will take place in spring 2017.

5) Further discussions on the assessment areas and criteria as well as the principles of continuous improvement are needed with the pilot institutions.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labour intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results. This should be taken into account when the savings are calculated in the project.

Mission report of Activity 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

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 Heli Mattisen, Ms Maiki Udam

Dates of the Mission: 3-7 October 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 activity 1.1. there was prepared a review on the Azerbaijani HE legal framework, identifying possible gaps in the legislation relevant to QA and the HE sections of the AzQF. Based on the recommendations in gap analysis and on components 2, 3 and 4 recommendations to the Azerbaijani higher education the MoE was expected to prepare a draft of the possible amendments in legislation.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Recently the MoE introduced a draft of the new State standard and program for higher education (State standard). The Objectives of the Mission were to review the draft, evaluate its compatibility with principles of the European higher education area and recommendations given by the STEs, and to provide concrete recommendations in order to ensure consistency between regulations.

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 MoE it was possible to critically evaluate the impact and applicability of recommendations.

6. Unexpected Results

During the time of the mission, the existence of a Regulation for universities was revealed. This Regulation is not available in English and has not been appeared so far during previous missions, although it is an important part of local higher education legislation and its content could most probably have had an impact to STEs recommendations.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There were no issues left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

To achieve the objectives of Component 1.2, active participation of the Legal Department of the MoE in the future activities of the project is of utmost importance.

All relevant HE Regulations, e.g., the Regulation for universities as well as amended standards for Bachelor and Master studies, should be translated to English and made available to STEs. Otherwise there is not possible to provide adequate recommendations from STEs.

During the mission, several topics were raised that need further attention. For example, the full concept of recognition of prior learning and work experience (RPL) is not been introduced to regulations yet. Implementation of RPL will require intense internal discussions, supported by external know-how and best practices. There are several projects that are initiated to support development of doctoral studies (e.g., Twinning, Nizami) and lots of recommendations have been made. The next stage should focus on the implementation and in order to achieve it, a tight and constructive cooperation between different counterparts – MoE, Higher Attestation Commission and universities – is essential.       

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Considerable efforts have been made by the Ministry of Education (MoE) in adopting the principles of European higher education area. The draft of the new State standard takes into account several recommendations that STEs have made during previous missions. The proposed changes concerning HEIs government bodies, especially increased involvement of students in Scientific Board and moving towards principles of learning outcomes, are remarkable and positive developments.

However, the STEs still have some recommendations regarding the structure of higher education standards, management of higher education, requirements for higher education studies, learning outcomes and assessment of students.

The Structure of Regulations

1. The scope of State standard is regulated by Education Law art 6.4. Overall the draft is in accordance with the delegation provision.

However, the State standard and separate standards for Bachelor, Master and Doctoral studies are overlapping in many areas and are not completely harmonized. In order to strengthen the links and continuity between different higher education levels, it would be advisable to consider consolidating the necessary standards of different study levels into the State standard, instead of having them separately. This approach ensures better consistency and continuity of regulations.

We also recommend to reduce the detailed descriptions in regulations (e.g., length of a break between classes etc) as much as possible.

2. It would be also advisable to add and determine in the State standard the definitions which are common to all higher education levels and are essential to understand the State standard content.

For example, although all curricula should be developed according to the principles of learning outcomes (LO) and ECTS, the term “learning outcomes” have been used neither in the draft of the State standard nor in current level standards. In addition, terms like study programme, credit point, academic year, qualification framework, learning outcomes, full time and part time studies etc should be defined.

3. We also recommend to include the HE level descriptors (levels 6-8) from the draft of NQF in an Annex and to refer to their correspondence with a respective level in EQF. It gives a clear reference point to curriculum developers and supports Azeri HE to meet the objectives of the Bologna process.

4. To decrease the number of national educational standards (programmes, curricula) and to give HEIs more autonomy in curriculum development, we recommend to aggregate study programmes into broader units – fields of study (or: study programme groups), that are based on ISCED classification and modified according to the Azeri context and needs. It will ease the development of national educational programmes as well as future external reviews (accreditation) and will be in accordance with the trends in many (developed) countries in the world.

Uniform requirements for all levels of higher education

5. In the draft of State standards in Chapter 2 Content of higher education the main goals and most relevant learning outcomes are described. It is recommended to add to the chapter quality requirements relevant for all study levels of higher education (including doctoral education) and rename it accordingly.

Following proposal for the content of the chapter is derived from Standards and guidelines for quality assurance of higher education in Azerbaijan prepared by a working group consisting of representatives of universities, MoE and Twinning experts. The quality requirements set in State standard of higher education serve as a common basis for internal and external quality assurance (including licensing).

• The higher education institution shall develop students’ ability to adapt to modern requirements and conditions, to be competitive, independent and creative individuals and responsible citizens, to live and act in information society and to build communication.
• The institution shall support academic integrity and is vigilant against academic fraud; it supports guarding against intolerance of any kind or discrimination against the students and staff.
• The design and development of study plans is in line with areas of activity and educational objectives of the institution, expectations of the society, labour market needs, and the latest research.
• Objectives, intended learning outcomes, admission and graduation requirements of the programmes are clearly defined.
• Expected student workload is defined in credit point system at all levels of higher education.
• Qualification resulting from the programme is referred to the appropriate level of the European qualifications framework in order to assure the comparability of qualifications.
• Academic staff with adequate qualifications ensure the achievement of the objectives and learning outcomes of the study programme, as well as the quality and sustainability of teaching and learning.
• The distribution of full-time teaching staff by age and qualifications facilitates the sustainability of studies. Providing ground to ensure that society’s need for highly-qualified and competitive staff are met.
• Teaching and learning takes into account the educational needs of students, provides flexible learning opportunities and encourages active participation of students in creating the learning process.
• Practical work/internship supports the achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme.
• Student assessment is objective, consistent, transparent and supports the achievement of learning outcomes.
• Students are provided academic, career and psychological counselling by the higher education institution. Students’ academic progress is monitored and supported; the institution has processes and tools to support special educational needs.
• Up-to-date teaching materials, innovative, creative and interactive learning methods and educational technology are used in teaching and learning process.
• Information technology tools for studies and research and development activities and connections to domestic and international information networks are accessible and necessary data bases are available.

6. The principles of the student assessment are very well described (e.g., transparency, objectivity, fairness, self-evaluation, diverse methods and tools of assessment). In addition, the main aim of assessment should also be clearly stated: to measure whether the learning outcomes have been achieved as well as to support students’ learning. The assessment methods and criteria should be in full accordance with the learning outcome(s).

Unfortunately the further text in the draft of the State standard describing the 100-point score assessment is in contradiction with the requirement of using different assessment tools and methods. 100-point scoring is certainly not suitable for each assignment (e.g., creative and/or project work) and does not encourage teachers to apply different assessment methods. Therefore, we recommend to discard the specific requirement for points and to unify only the letter grades (A-F).

7. Regarding the requirements for infrastructure (Chapter 4. Material, technical and teaching resources) it is recommended to include quality requirements as well, indicating the need for proper infrastructure in order to achieve the educational goals of the institution. Following examples could be considered:

• The working conditions, teaching and learning environment, and R&D conditions (library, studios, workshops, laboratories etc.) support the achievement of institutional and educational objectives.
• Activities of the higher education institution are supported by up-to-date information technology solutions, including the study information system, e-learning opportunities, and communication portals for students and teaching staff

Specific requirements for each study level

8. While merging the separate standards into the State standard, it would be advisable to use a unified structure of the regulation and provide for each study level (BA, MA, PhD):

• The main purpose of studies.
• The nominal duration of curricula.
• Access requirements, previous qualification.
• Degree awarded.
• Link to the level in the European qualification framework.
• Rights related to the degree (access to further studies etc).

If needed, the study level specific requirements for full time or part-time studies, requirements for practical work, requirements for teaching staff (e.g., required percentage of PhD-holders) etc could be added.

Doctoral studies 

9. Learning outcomes of level 8 are agreed among relevant stakeholders and should be added to the State standards. Description of intended learning outcomes will provide basis for programme development at doctoral level and comparison with respective qualifications in other countries. There is no differentiation of learning outcomes at level 8 between PhD and Doctor of Sciences, and the compulsory credit point system is not applicable for the programme of Doctor of Sciences, therefore we recommend not to describe the DSc programme in the State standards for higher education.

10. As recommended during previous Twinning missions and in Nizami project, there is a need to assure the quality of doctoral education. Doctoral education should be based on high level research, thus it is recommended to concentrate doctoral programmes in large, research intensive and well equipped universities. State standards for higher education or some other appropriate regulation could include special requirements in this regard, for example:

• only higher education institutions which have gained the status of research university are eligible for offering PhD programmes and/or
• before granting to the institution the right to launch a doctoral programme the scope and level of research in the respective area will be assessed by an (international) expert team based on transparent criteria.

The universities should be given full autonomy in scientific matters, but there should be (internal and external) quality assurance system in place in order to safeguard the adequate level and comparability.

Management of higher education

11. As a remarkably positive development the MoE has drafted a new regulation for Scientific board to involve more students in Scientific Board activities (Scientific Board consists both appointed and elected members. At least 20% of elected members should be students). The election of head of chairs and deans are left to the faculties to increase their autonomy.

However, the main division of responsibilities between Rector and Scientific Board is still unclear and need to be clarified in the State standard or in some other appropriate regulation. Also it could be advisable to describe the composition principles of the Scientific Board and possibly the qualification requirements for Rector’s candidates.

12. 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 clearer division between Rector’s and Scientific Board’s rights, obligations and responsibilities.

Teaching staff

13. The draft of the new State standard describes in relevant manner the basic principles of teaching staff activities.

However, it would be advisable to add to the State standard the main qualification requirements for teaching staff, so they, along with the study program requirements, could form a complete set of requirements which are needed to conduct higher education studies.

14. The State standard could also provide a description of the main responsibilities of every academic position. For example, whether a professor should participate actively in research, development or other creative activity both on national and international level; organize and conduct the teaching of his or her subject; lead research, development or other creative activity in his/her field of study; supervise students etc.

Mission report of Actvity 3.4 Further Implementation of the AzQF

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.4 Further Implementation of the AzQF

Name of the Expert: Dr Olav Aarna

Dates of the Mission: 20-21 July 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The development of Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework (AzQF) started already in 2011 supported by World Bank and European Training Foundation (ETF) projects. By 2013, the draft AzQF was developed, stipulating the main principles, institutions involved, level descriptors, placement of types of qualifications, and quality assurance of qualifications. In 2012 the draft AzQF was submitted to the Council of Europe for expertise. Recommendations proposed by the Council of Europe expert have been taken into account while designing the AzQF final draft.   Seminars introducing the AzQF to stakeholders and international partners were held in 2012 and 2014. Nevertheless, the Decree is still in a draft form. A draft of the implementation plan for the AzQF has also been prepared by ETF and Azerbaijani counterparts.

In 2014, ETF prepared a comprehensive document “Analysis of existing qualification standards in Azerbaijan”, containing the descriptions of different qualifications' levels as well as concrete recommendations for further actions for 2015-2017 with division of roles and responsibilities in development, revision, approval and application of AzQF. The document was sent to the Minister of Education on November 12, 2014.

In November 2015 the Minister of Education submitted the draft AzQF document to the Cabinet of Ministers. Feedback from different ministries included several recommendations for amendments in the text.

During the last two years the Ministry of Education (MoE) staff has been renewed fundamentally. Only one person, Mr. Azad Ahundov, has been involved in the development of AzQF from the very beginning. As a result, the new staff members, incl. the heads of departments and units of the MoE have limited understanding about the AzQF purpose, objectives, guiding principles, and the way to implement it. Even more importantly, there is no clear ownership of the AzQF in the MoE.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the mission was to present background information about the AzQF development to the Minister of Education and leading specialist of the MoE, and discuss issues raised and problems of the AzQF implementation.

It was suggested that ETF senior specialist Mr Arjen Deij and the Twinning project expert Dr Olav Aarna, who have assisted the MoE in developing the AzQF document, make the presentation(s), particularly reflecting the Estonian experience. The initial outline for the presentation was suggested to cover the following topics:

• What are Qualifications Frameworks: an international and brief historical overview. The context of the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning and why this is important for Azerbaijan. The development of the Azerbaijan Qualifications Framework 2011-2012, incl. development process, objectives, key mechanisms.
• How the AZQF can support the Education Development Strategy and diversification.
• Implementation of the AZQF - implementation plan 2016-2020. 
• Which qualifications (state educational standards; possible other standards) should be part of the AZQF register and how they should change to be in line with the AZQF, including linking Vocational and Professional Qualifications and Occupational Standards.
• Impact on learning, assessment and Quality Assurance.
• Impact on HE reform, VET reform and on lifelong learning
• Career Information and Guidance.
• Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning. 
• Organisation of the Qualification System, incl.

1. Legislation beyond NQF decree
2. Stakeholder engagement
3. Institutional arrangements and functions (including how to coordinate implementation)
4. Quality Assurance arrangements

• The main objectives and activities proposed by the EU project to support the development and implementation of the AzQF

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Both meetings were certainly very useful for further development and implementation of the AzQF. Members of the MoE staff directly involved in potential implementation of the AzQF received deeper and more adequate understanding about the conceptual issues related. Anyhow, the Minister of Education expressed serious concerns about the risks related to potential approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers.

It has been decided, that:

• The MoE will not force approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers, while important steps towards the AzQF implementation will be started immediately, following the implementation plan 2016-2020;
• The AzQF document will be revised in the context of educational reforms envisaged, if necessary;
• A secretariat headed by one of the deputy heads of Apparatus will be established at the MoE to administer further development and implementation of the AzQF;
• A steering committee involving representatives of major stakeholders will be established to coordinate further development and implementation of the AzQF.

6. Unexpected Results

Refusal to go ahead with the approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers was somewhat unexpected result. On the other hand, the decision to start implementation of the AzQF (incl. awareness raising in society, deeper involvement of all stakeholders, etc.) prior to formal approval of the document, was unexpected but very positive result.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues left open.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

It is recommended, that future missions of the Activity 3.4: Further Implementation of the AzQF, follow the progress in implementing the decisions mentioned in p.5, and offer necessary advice and support.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The mission has proved to be successful. Hopefully, the AzQF development and implementation process gained new momentum.

Mission report of Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

 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: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

Name of the Experts: Ms. Kati Isoaho

                                     Ms. Marja-Liisa Saarilammi

Dates of the Mission: 10-14 October 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in this work has been the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Twinning project offers the opportunity for applying the ESG in Azerbaijani higher education. One of the mandatory results of the project is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan (AzSG) in line with the ESG and test them with three higher education institutions.

A Drafting Group was appointed by the Ministry of Education in April 2016 to work on a proposal for the Azerbaijani Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The drafting group consisted of representatives from Azerbaijani universities, the Ministry of Education and students as well as Finnish and Estonian experts. The Accreditation and Nostrification Office also joined in the work of the drafting group. Based on the ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, interviews in previous missions and discussions with different stakeholders, the first proposal for AzSG (including the description of the overall framework, the evaluation process, assessment areas and criteria) was drafted.

The main aims of the pilot evaluations were also set: to support the strategic management of institutions, to provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the institutions’ quality assurance with the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have an institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide pilot institutions with information regarding their strengths and good practices as well as recommendations for institutions’ further development.

The first draft of the manual was discussed with the Advisory Group in a seminar on 1 June 2016. After the discussion, the Twinning Office published the draft on its website in order to get written feedback on the assessment areas and criteria. The feedback was considered by STEs and other relevant actors in August, and necessary amendments were made on the manual. It was concluded that as the enhancement-oriented approach is new for Azerbaijani higher education institutions, there is a need for further seminars and trainings which will be provided for the pilot institutions in autumn 2016.

The first missions of the Activity 4.4. (“Fostering the self-evaluation capacity”) were carried out in September 2016. Three one-day trainings were provided for the pilot institutions to start preparing for the self-evaluation. The content of the training was divided into two main topics: introduction of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan. Manual for Pilot Evaluations and share of the good practices examples of internal quality assurance at the Finnish higher education institutions. In addition to this, participants were asked to identify the relevant units and persons to carry out the upcoming self-evaluation at their institutions.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them in three higher education institutions. The objective of the Activity 4.4 is to support the capacity to conduct a self-evaluation for the external evaluation in the pilot institutions.

The task of this particular training were that participants

• understand the framework of the self-evaluation method
• learn to use self-evaluation as a tool in the institutional reviews
• to start the actual self-evaluation process

Selected assessment areas for the training were study programmes and their development (4), students (5) and teaching and learning resources and support services (7). Rest of the assessment areas (four altogether) were left for the last workshop in November-December 2016.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results were achieved as planned. Three trainings were carried out with 63 participants altogether. Participants represented different units and academic fields of the pilot institutions.

The training materials used were as follow (Annex 4)

• slides (purpose of the self-evaluation, description of the entire evaluation process, description of the self-evaluation process, descriptions of the three assessment areas handled in the trainings, a view to the next steps of the evaluation process), available in English
• evaluation forms, available in English and in Azerbaijani

As one of the mission results, the contact persons were nominated for each piloting institution. They are as follows:

Natiq Ahmadov, Azerbaijan Technical University

Ragif Gasimov, Azerbaijan State Economics University

Senan Aliyev, Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University

Outcomes of the trainings

The self-evaluation framework, the working-method and the process of self-evaluation were presented to all participants. After that participants applied the SE-method in small teams to their own departments/units.  Finally the outcomes of training day were presented to all audience and the STEs commented the using the method.

The all three universities participate very actively and were able and ready to discover and share their strengths, good practices and areas for improvement. Universities found many good practices in their activities, such as, tutoring-system, internship programmes and good learning environments. From the point of view of the STEs this proves that the participants understood the concept and purpose of the self-evaluation.

6. Unexpected Results

At the training arranged at Azerbaijan State Economic University it was asked by the university representatives whether the FINEEC could carry out the programme accreditation for some of the institutions programmes as a part of the pilot evaluations. As the programme accreditations are not included in the project plan it was explained that this is not possible. Additionally, it was noted that the FINEEC carries out institutional audits at the foreign higher education institutions. Furthermore, this kind of activity requires that the institution to be audited makes an agreement with FINEEC and pays a sufficient fee.

At the training arranged in the Pedagogical University it was asked, could they perform self-evaluation using SWOT-method. It was discussed that SWOT-method does not relieve the good practices, however, it could be useful tool when universities draft the actual self-evaluation report.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

STEs recommend that

1. Schedule of the upcoming site-visits included in the evaluation process should be confirmed and piloting institutions be informed on it.
2. Furthermore, the submission date of the self-evaluation report should be confirmed for each piloting institution.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

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. 

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.

Mission report of Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity