Programme accreditation

1. Commissioning of an accreditation agency

For the assessment of study programs, the university commissions an accreditation agency approved by the Accreditation Council. Early coordination with the agency is recommended, particularly for planning the procedure and clarifying organizational and technical questions. If necessary, applications for the extension of accreditation deadlines or for the approval of bundled procedures must be submitted to the Accreditation Council, which should also be submitted as early as possible.

In coordination with the agency, the university prepares a self-evaluation report with the required annexes, in which the degree program(s) are presented on the basis of the formal and subject-related criteria for degree programs. The self-evaluation report and the appendices form the central basis for the subsequent assessment process. The student representatives must be involved in an appropriate manner, for example by submitting a separate statement.

2. Appraisal

The accreditation procedure is multi-stage and follows the peer review principle. Once an accreditation agency has been commissioned, it puts together a group of experts whose composition takes into account the subject-specific orientation and profile of the degree program(s). The expert group consists of at least two university lecturers with close professional ties, one representative of professional practice and one student. Appointments are made in accordance with the procedure of the German Rectors’ Conference.

First, the accreditation agency examines the formal criteria in accordance with Part 2 of the specimen decree or the study accreditation decree of the country in which the higher education institution is based and records the results in a formal report, which is made available to the expert group. On this basis, the expert group carries out the technical and content-related assessment in accordance with Part 3 of the specimen decree or the respective study accreditation decree of the higher education institution’s home state. In addition to analyzing the application documents, this usually includes an on-site visit to the higher education institution with discussions with all relevant status groups. The results are documented in a peer review report with a recommendation to the Accreditation Council.

The formal report and peer review report together form the accreditation report and are to be submitted in the grid specified by the Accreditation Council.

3. Submission of the application/application (ELIAS)

The prerequisites for submitting an application for program accreditation (concept, initial or reaccreditation) in the ELIAS system are an activated account, the corresponding data record (which must be created for initial or concept accreditation) and complete application documents. The application documents include the accreditation report, the self-evaluation report and, in any case, the annexes to the self-evaluation report in the version on which the recommendation of the Agencies/expert group was based. Optionally, a statement on the accreditation report can be submitted, e.g. if the higher education institution does not agree with the recommendation of the agency/assessor group or if deficiencies identified in the accreditation report have already been rectified. The annexes must be clearly prepared, e.g. in a PDF document with a clickable table of contents. Once the application has been created in the ELIAS system, each application is automatically assigned an application number. Analogous to the naming of up to two university contact persons per application, each application is assigned a fixed contact person from the Head Office of the German Accreditation Council. For further information see FAQ 01, 03 and 07.

4. Internal application review at the office

After submission, the head office formally checks the application for completeness: Have all mandatory fields been completed? Do the study programs and their master data entered in the ELIAS system match the accreditation report? The notification of fees is also created during this process. Once the preliminary check has been completed, this is stored in the application and the applicant is informed by ELIAS message.

A consultant from the head office of the Accreditation Council Foundation then carries out a plausibility check of the application. This consists of a reading of the accreditation report and, if necessary, individual inquiries in the self-evaluation report and annexes. A draft resolution is prepared for each degree program. In the next step, a rapporteur from the group of university lecturers on the Accreditation Council examines the documents and can approve or object to the draft resolution or indicate a need for discussion. For further information, see FAQ 13.1.

5. Decision on the application

The application is submitted to the Accreditation Council for a decision: If no member of the Accreditation Council indicates a need to discuss an application, it is generally not discussed individually but decided en bloc. Negative decisions are generally discussed individually. The accreditation decision is issued on the basis of the Accreditation Council’s decision.

6. Comment procedure

A statement procedure is only initiated if the Accreditation Council intends to deviate from the decision proposals in the accreditation report in a way that is burdensome for the higher education institution making the application, namely by imposing additional conditions or a negative decision. In this case, a provisional resolution is issued rather than a decision. The higher education institution has three options: If a statement is not submitted (1) or there is no response (2) within the statement deadline, the decision is published immediately afterwards and the higher education institution receives a corresponding notice. If a relevant statement (3) is submitted that contradicts the resolution, a consultant from the Head Office of the German Accreditation Council will review the statement. The new status is added to the draft resolution. A rapporteur from the group of university lecturers on the Accreditation Council then examines the statement and can agree or disagree with the draft resolution or indicate a need for discussion. The final decision is usually made at the next meeting of the Accreditation Council.

7. Fulfillment of conditions

If the Accreditation Council decides to accredit a study program subject to conditions, the conditions workflow starts automatically. The deadline for fulfilling the conditions is specified in the accreditation decision. Within the timeframe set for the fulfillment of conditions, the higher education institution has the opportunity to submit evidence of fulfillment of conditions (condition documents) or a justified application for an extension of the condition fulfillment deadline.

If documents are submitted to fulfill the conditions, the application is submitted to the Accreditation Council for a decision after completion of the assessment by a consultant from the head office of the Accreditation Council Foundation and the report from the group of university lecturers.

If the fulfillment of the conditions is confirmed, the university is informed of the result and receives a corresponding notification. If the conditions have not yet been fulfilled or only partially fulfilled, a one-off grace period of six months will be granted. The university may submit further proof of fulfillment of the conditions. If the conditions are still not fulfilled within the grace period, accreditation may be withdrawn. In this case, the university is given another opportunity to comment.

8. Material change

If there is a significant change to the study program during the period of validity of the accreditation, the higher education institution is obliged to notify the Accreditation Council immediately. The higher education institution should outline and justify the change in a short letter. In the ELIAS system, the higher education institution can upload the letter of justification, the amended study program documents and other evidence in the corresponding application and clearly mark the passages that have been changed.

Significant changes relate in particular to changes to the course title, standard period of study, degree level, forms of study, course design, qualification objectives, course profile and content, establishment of specializations that lead to substantially different competences for graduates or if an identical curriculum is offered in different forms of delivery, at different learning locations or by different partners. Usual content-related developments that do not significantly change the overall framework in terms of qualification objectives and resources are to be considered insignificant.

About us: Since the Board of the German Accreditation Council usually decides on change notifications, the application is not bound to the meeting cycle of the Accreditation Council. However, it should be noted that the Board can refer individual cases to the Accreditation Council or postpone a decision, for example to obtain external expert statements. If an essential change is covered by the existing accreditation, this can be linked to ancillary conditions (conditions). For further information, see FAQ 18 and ELIAS 13.