QUAA Education framework · 2026.1Higher Education
Higher Education
Quality Review Framework.
Forty evidence-led criteria across eight domains for structured European higher education quality reviews.
The QUAA framework is informed by the public principles of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015). It is not an official ESG certification, an ENQA-approved product or an endorsement by EQAR.
Principles of design
- Evidence must be observable, attributable and appropriately current.
- Claims should be tested against documented implementation and stakeholder experience.
- Reviewers and decision makers must be competent and free of disqualifying conflicts.
- Different review scopes must lead to different and accurately worded outcomes.
- Unfavourable findings must not be suppressed as a condition of payment.
- Every framework version must be dated, traceable and open to structured revision.
Framework limitations
This is a QUAA-created public review reference informed by relevant European higher education quality principles. It is not an accreditation scheme approved by a government, ENQA, EQAR or another external authority. Review findings require independent decision authorization, documented evidence and publication approval.
Start with clarity
Use standards before slogans.
Explore the sources that inform QUAA’s proposed educational quality-review approach.
QUAA Education framework · 2026.1
40 criteria across eight domains.
This public reference framework organizes review questions and evidence examples. Criteria are applied proportionately to the agreed review scope; a website listing does not demonstrate that a practice is operating.
How findings are handled: For each applicable criterion, a review records its scope, evidence source and date, responsible authority, verification method, reviewer finding and limitations. Findings may be Met, Partially Met, Not Met or Not Applicable only after documented review. No automatic score, badge or accreditation decision is created by this framework.
Governance & Accountability
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Published institutional identity, lawful operating scope and decision responsibilities | Legal/status source, organization chart, governing terms |
| A02 | Academic decision and delegated authority controls | Meeting terms, approvals matrix, decision logs |
| A03 | Conflict and related-party disclosure with management actions | Registers, signed declarations, recusals |
| A04 | Student and stakeholder participation in quality oversight | Student representation, minutes, consultation results |
| A05 | Periodic review of governance effectiveness | Action log, review schedule, published changes |
Programme Design & Information
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| B01 | Programme purpose and measurable intended learning outcomes | Programme specifications, outcomes map |
| B02 | Curriculum alignment, levels, credits and workload logic | Curriculum map, workload estimates, credit policy |
| B03 | Transparent awarding authority and qualification type | Award/partner agreements, authorized programme records |
| B04 | Fair admission criteria and meaningful progression routes | Admission policy, entry criteria, progression rules |
| B05 | Documented approval, monitoring and periodic review | Programme approval record, review minutes, action tracking |
Teaching, Learning & Digital Delivery
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| C01 | Learning design aligned with outcomes and student engagement | Sample modules, lesson plans, outcome maps |
| C02 | Appropriate educator expertise and teaching responsibilities | Staff qualifications, role contracts, staffing map |
| C03 | Reliable LMS availability, navigation and learning access | Platform service levels, accessibility testing, uptime data |
| C04 | Student activity, support and feedback mechanisms | Course samples, feedback process, support examples |
| C05 | Quality checks for recorded, hybrid and live learning | Media QA, captions, transcript, instructor moderation SOP |
Assessment Integrity & Academic Standards
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| D01 | Assessment methods demonstrate intended learning outcomes | Assessment blueprints, grading rubrics |
| D02 | Consistent and fair moderation, grading and appeals | Moderation records, reassessment and appeals regulations |
| D03 | Integrity controls proportionate to assessment stakes | Identity checks, plagiarism rules, academic honesty guidance |
| D04 | Transparent and proportionate responsible AI assessment guidance | AI use policy, assessment instructions, staff training |
| D05 | Secure exam, records and decision controls | Authentication, system permissions, records lifecycle |
Student Experience & Inclusion
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| E01 | Information is correct at application, enrolment and award stages | Student handbook, policy pages, program disclosures |
| E02 | Accessible learning and appropriate adjustments | WCAG evidence, accommodations process, testing |
| E03 | Documented learner support and response standards | Support catalogue, contact routes, outcome tracking |
| E04 | Transparent complaints and appeals, fair review rights | Complaints rules, impartial appeal channel, records |
| E05 | Meaningful learner feedback and improvement action | Surveys, student forums, response evidence |
Information, Data Protection & Security
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| F01 | Data collection and lawful processing basis documented | Privacy notice, data inventory, legal basis |
| F02 | Access control and security safeguards appropriate to the platform | IAM permissions, incident plans, audit logs |
| F03 | Retention/deletion and disclosure controls | Retention schedule, records policies, rights requests |
| F04 | Reliable data quality and metric definitions | Indicator dictionary, data checks, audit samples |
| F05 | Responsible vendor/processor arrangements | Contracts, DPA, assessment of suppliers |
Research Ethics & Doctoral Quality
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| G01 | Research integrity and participant protection arrangements | Research ethics policy, review records |
| G02 | Supervision, milestones and doctoral level requirements where relevant | Supervision allocation, progression, examination rules |
| G03 | Originality, attribution, scholarly dissemination | Research assessment rubrics, authorship policies |
| G04 | Research data stewardship and responsible use | Management plans, consent and storage |
| G05 | External review/quality monitoring proportionate to research scope | Independent review record, corrective actions |
Continuous Improvement & Public Transparency
| ID | Criterion | Illustrative evidence |
|---|---|---|
| H01 | Published quality framework, version control and accountable owners | Quality handbook, document register |
| H02 | Operational KPIs tied to evidence not invented numbers | Indicator dictionary, signed reporting records |
| H03 | Corrective action tracking from finding to verified closure | CAPA log, effectiveness checks |
| H04 | Public information about recognition, awards and third parties is verifiable | Programme status and external decision links |
| H05 | Changes to published information are traceable and timely | Change log, website publishing policy |