This document summarizes Finland's system for auditing higher education quality systems. It describes how the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) conducts audits of universities and universities of applied sciences to evaluate their internal quality assurance systems. The audits use enhancement-led criteria to assess quality policies, management, development, education, research, societal impact, and the overall quality system. Institutions that pass receive a quality label for six years. The audits aim to support continuous improvement rather than ranking. The Finnish audit system is considered successful and has fostered quality culture, collaboration, and development across higher education.

1. Finnish Higher Education Structure and the Audit Approach
Chief Planning Officer
Karl Holm
Helsinki 10.6.2014

2. Bachelor's degrees
Studies at universities Studies at Universities of
Applied Sciences
Master's degrees
Licentiate degrees
PhD degrees
Work experience
UAS Bachelor's degrees
UAS Master's degrees
?

3. Quality assurance of Finnish higher
education
Ministry of Education
and Culture:
• Steering
• Decision-making
FINEEC:
• National responsibility
• Audits of QA systems
• Other evaluations
Quality assurance
at HEIs:
• Main responsibility for quality and improvement
of education and other activities
• Establishment of a QA system
• Participation in external evaluations of its activities
and quality systems

4. Our Duties
1. Assist
2. Evaluate
3. Support
4. Participate

5. FINEEC’s evaluation types
FINEEC currently conducts two principal types of evaluations for higher education:
• Audits of quality systems of higher education institutions (universities and universities of applied
sciences)
• Thematic evaluations and programme/field-specific evaluations
(the field or theme must be significant with regard to education and society, rapidly growing and
developing or problematic).
FINEEC may also undertake evaluation projects
1) under a mandate from the Ministry of Education and Culture, as was the case with the selection
of Centres of Excellence in Education
2) as contract work provided that the evaluations fit thematically into FINEEC's strategy.

6. Thematic & programme/field-specific
evaluations
2013
 Evaluation of education in early childhood education
 Evaluation of higher education institutions’ societal and regional impact
 An evaluation of international degree programmes in Finland
2012
 Centres of excellence in university education Finland 1999-2012 - An evaluation
 Quality management in stakeholder cooperation at higher education institutions
 Enhancing quality. Audits in Finnish Higher Education Institutions 2005-2012
 From the bottom up - Evaluation of RDI activities of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences
 Evaluation of the Bologna Process Implementation in Finland

7. FINHEEC to FINEEC in 2014
• Government programme stated that evaluation functions of Finnish education (FINHEEC, FEEC,
and a Unit from the Finnish National Board of Education) will merge into one Finnish Education
Evaluation Centre –FINEEC => everything from kindergarten to higher education evaluation in one
centre
• Stated aim is to strengthen evaluation of education and its independence
• Better premises for international cooperation and impact
• Austerity or economic efficiency are not mentioned as motivation
• Should be cost neutral merger

8. Key features in Finnish HE
• Development in the Finnish HE is similar to many other
industrialized western societies. In late 1990’s Finnish universities
insisted in more autonomy.
• It became evident that demographic development of Finland and
in many other countries, challenges the future of higher
education institutions. Younger age groups were decreasing and
the population was drawn by a few growing regions.
• These were the circumstances under which the new higher
education and science policy initiative of structural development
was structured. The dual higher education system including
universities and universities of applied sciences UAS is being
restructured by the means of organizational, disciplinary and
regional prioritization and profiling of institutions.

9. Key features…
• Open and equal access for all → entrance examinations
• Dual system, universities and universities of applied sciences
• An extensive network of HE institutions covering the whole country → regional
equality
• Tuition free system
• HEIs may arrange made-to-order degree education to students from of non-
EU/EEA countries, but only if it is commissioned and paid by the Finnish
government, another state, an international organisation, a Finnish or
foreign public corporation, a foundation or a private corporation
• A fixed-term trial of charging tuition fees to citizens of non-EU/EEA
countries master's programs in foreign languages scholarship scheme

10. Structural changes in HE
• “At least one higher education institution in every province”
• Mergers of institutions
• from 20 to 14 research universities –
• from 30 to 25 universities of applied sciences
• Different (regional) structures for cooperation
• Mergers
• Consortia
• Federations
• Strategic entities
• Other new forms of cooperation
• One eternal question: sectorial research institutions vs.
universities

11. Changes in legislation
• New Universities Act 2010:
• universities either independent corporations under public law (majority) or foundations
under private law (Aalto University, Tampere University of Technology)
• University senates/boards: external members including Chair
• Personnel contract based, not civil servants; mostly employed by the rector
• Reform of the UAS Act 2014
• Reform of funding (→ performance based) and steering (→ joint stock companies)
• New licenses/authorization → changes in degree programs; more mergers and less
campuses?
• Universities expected to have a stronger role in the society, especially in the innovation
system → EU action lines in higher education policy

12. Funding
• Performance indicators for universities from 2013 onwards:
• Education: 41 % - B & M degrees , students completing 55 ECTS
annually, open university, employment of graduates,
internationalization
• Research: 34 % - Doctoral degrees, publications, external research
funding, internationalization
• Other: 25 % - strategic funding, support for ”expensive” fields, national
tasks
• Funding from the state budget covers about 2/3 of university
budgets
• Supplementary funding (Academy of Finland, Tekes, private
foundations, paid services etc.)
• Universities of applied sciences:
• new system of indicators from 2014 onwards; purely performance
based
• significant cuts during 2012-2015 (-16 %)

13. FINEEC
Audits…

14. FINEEC audit
• Finland’s response to the requirements of the Bologna process to develop a comprehensive
national higher education QA system
• Institutional approach – the same model for both higher education sectors (universities and
universities of applied sciences)
• Comprehensive approach – covers education, research and social impact – and overall
quality management
• External assessment of internal QA - reflects institutions’ autonomy and responsibility, and a
large measure of trust
• HEIs are responsible for the quality of their operations
• Each institution develops its quality system based on its own needs and goals

15. Enhancement-led approach
• Aim to support HEIs in the enhancement of quality and establishment of quality culture by (1)
producing information to assist HEIs to develop their activities, and by (2) exchanging and disseminating
good practices among other HEIs
• As a result of the audit, an institution either passes the audit and receives a quality label or is subjected
to a subsequent re-audit
• Institutions are neither rewarded for a positive result nor punished for a negative one – there are
no financial incentives or loss of degree-awarding powers
• No ranking among institutions is established on the basis of audits

16. What is evaluated and how?
• The quality system is evaluated against the HEI’s objectives, focusing on its
efficiency and fitness for purpose – against the FINEEC criteria
 Does the system produce useful information and does the HEI use the system to
develop its activities?
• Does the quality system cover all activities and units of the HEI?
• Four stages:
1. The HEI carries out a self-evaluation and prepares the audit material
2. A team of experts appointed by FINEEC reviews the material
3. Site visit by the experts
4. The audit results are published in a report

17. What is not evaluated?
 The mission of the HEI
 Strategy
 Objectives
 Results
 Quality of education
 Quality of research and development
 Quality of societal interaction
 Quality of support services

18. The Aim of the Audit…
• to produce a clearer assessment of how the quality system
supports the strategic leadership and the management of
operations at HE institutions
• to review the evidence institutions have on the impact of the
quality system on the development of operations
• audits are considered to offer better support for the
continuous development of institutions

19. 19
1. The quality policy of the HEI
2. Strategic and operations management
3. The development of the quality system
4. Quality management of the higher education institution’s basic duties:
i. Degree education (three cycles)
ii. Research, development and innovation activities, as well as artistic activities
iii. The societal impact and regional development work
iv. Optional audit target
5. Samples of degree education: degree programmes
6. The quality system as a whole
The audit targets

20. Complete
absence or major
shortcomings
There’s already
something but it
is still inadequate
and unsystematic
The system and
procedures are
developed and
adequate
 Work is
systematic,
well-
established
 Continuous
evidence
 Excellence
Audit criteria: development stages

21. Threshold for passing
• The audit team can propose that the institution passes the audit if none of the targets
is evaluated to be ‘absent’ and if the stage of the quality system as a whole (audit
target 6) is evaluated to be at least ‘developing’
• FINEEC makes the final decision based on the audit team’s proposition

22. After an audit
• The audit report is published
• Strengths, good practices and recommendations for further development are
highlighted in the report
• A HEI that passes the audit receives a FINEEC quality label valid for six years,
otherwise the HEI will be subject to a re-audit
• FINEEC organises annually a follow-up seminar for HEI’s that passed the audit
three years before
• No formal consequences for the operating status of the HEI

23. Success of the audit framework
• The Finnish audit system can be considered a success – audits as enhancement-led evaluations have
received wide acceptance
• All Finnish HEIs have established comprehensive quality systems
• HEIs and FINEEC mutually trust one another, communication open and supportive
• Audits have contributed to the development of Finnish higher education by
• Changing quality and operational cultures in HEIs
• Fostering a sense of community and a general commitment to the institution
• Inclining HEIs to learn from one another and share information and good practices with one
another, also between the two higher education sectors – mutual understanding and
collaboration between the sectors have been enhanced
• The management in HEIs is highly committed to quality work
• Students are widely involved in the institution’s quality work
• Currently, FINEEC is conducting an audit of the University of Graz (Austria)