Accreditation processes for institutions, programmes and joint programmes

It is central to the rationale of MusiQuE that higher music education institutions should also have the opportunity to engage in formal accreditation procedures coordinated by it. This would mean that, in countries where evaluation and accreditation bodies other than the national agency are authorised to operate, institutions could combine with a MusiQuE quality enhancement review the accreditation procedure required by law. Under these circumstances, the subject-specific and enhancement-oriented process would not be an additional burden for the institution, over and above its national accreditation obligations, but would fulfil the two functions in one exercise.

Any such procedure will continue to be subject to the national legislative framework where the institution is located, and to other factors of suitability.

Objectives

• To provide a procedure that satisfies the legal obligations in terms of accreditation as described in the national regulation of the country in question and which conforms to the ESG
• To provide the opportunity for higher music education institutions to choose to be evaluated through a procedure devised and implemented by those with specialist knowledge and understanding of such institutions
• To offer a procedure that is intrinsically international in its outlook and in the range of countries from which experts are drawn
• To stimulate a process of internal reflection on quality issues and to bring fresh ideas and wider perspectives into institutions, encouraging the principle of ‘many correct answers’
• To deliver a procedure which, although its primary purpose may be to fulfil a legislative requirement, can be of genuine benefit and enhancement to the institution, its teachers and students, both in the debate and reflection it stimulates and in the changes that it may initiate

Process

• As with the Quality Enhancement Review, the institution is asked to prepare an analytical self-evaluation report, which is sent to the peer-reviewers at the latest a month before the site-visit
• The peer-reviewers (at least four persons, including a student), accompanied by a Secretary, conduct a site-visit of a minimum of 1.5 days for a programme review and 2.5 days for an institutional review, during which they meet members of the Management Team, of the Academic, Artistic and Administrative Staff, Students, Representatives of the Profession, etc., and have the opportunity to visit classes and lessons and attend concerts/recitals

Outcome

• The outcome is a report, written by international specialists in the relevant musical fields, which, in addition to highlighting good practice and including a set of suggestions for improvement, concludes with a formal recommendation as to the awarding of accreditation
• The report is published here.
• The report may call for accreditation without any recommendations or conditions, accreditation with recommendations only or accreditation subject to certain conditions, whether on their own or in addition to recommendations
• Any conditions will be framed in such a way that the outcome required and the timescale in which it should be achieved are clear, although, as far as possible, the institution will be given autonomy in terms of the methods by which it achieves the necessary outcome(s)
• If conditions have not been met in the set timeframe, the recommendation will be not to accredit the institution. Under such circumstances, a clear set of remedial steps will be outlined to guide the institution in the reforms considered necessary. The institution will then be free to re-apply for accreditation after a period of one year