1.2 The accreditation process must be satisfied to principles of transparency, consciousness and equality for stakeholders at all levels of the process.

1.3 The accreditation process is conducted in two waysnamely; HEIs and TVET institutions (referred to as the “Institution”) and degree –awarding academic programs (referred to as the “program”).

1.4 Institutional and program accreditation means that officially – empowered evaluation experts make an external review on the self-evaluation report prepared by the given HEI, which ensures that the institution or program meet accreditation criteria and requirements endorsed by the NCEA, and make a evaluation assessment by assuring the academic quality.

1.5 The process of institutional and program accreditation have 3 generic levels such as;

 Self –evaluation

 External review

 Accreditation decision–making

2.1 The institutional accreditation has following sequential steps and procedures.

Step of conducting the self-evaluation:

2.1.1 The institution will appoint a team assigned to undertake self-evaluation and to perform an assessment on whether it satisfies to accreditation criteria and requirements endorsed by the NCEA, and finally, draft summarized self-evaluation report.

2.1.2 Upon the self-evaluation report is discussed and approved via the HEI’s Board of Trustees, a request /application form/ on accreditation will be submitted to the NCEA Secretariat Office.

2.1.3 The NCEA Secretariat Office will accept only the request that meet below conditions;

a. Data on the application form must be complete and accurate.

b. Information specified on the application form must be potential to be evident through information on the institution’s website and official documents.

2.1.4 The Secretariat Office will scrutinize accurately the institution’s request within 10 days after receiving the request and if it is acceptable, it will appoint a coordinator, invoices costs related to the accreditation and conclude a contract with the institution. The office will stipulate responsibilities and obligations of contractor parties and conditions of payment and annexes the timelines with all phases, timings and responsible bodies until a decision is made.

2.1.5 The coordinator will serve to coordinate parties involved in the accreditation process and provide with methodological guidelines and advices for implementing responsibilities and obligations stipulated in 2.1.4 of this procedure, on behalf of the Secretariat Office.

2.1.6 The institutions should draft and submit its self-evaluation report in accordance with the coordinator’s guidelines within 3 months after the contract is concluded. The coordinator will scrutinize the self-evaluation report and supplementary data within 10 days after receiving the report. If there is any incomplete and inaccurate, the coordinator can return the report to the institution and accordingly, the institution submits back to the coordinator by eliminating detected inaccuracy and incompleteness within 7 days.

2.1.7 If the self-evaluation report and supplementary data are complete and accurate, the coordinator will hand out it to the respective commission, by accompanying with reference letter.

Step of conducting a reviewing process

2.1.8 The respective commission willscreen the self-evaluation report within 10 days after receiving the report with the coordinator’s reference letter. If the self-evaluation phase is completely satisfied to requirements of this procedure, the commission will start the accreditation process and assign numbers of external evaluation panel’s members and representatives’ composition of the panel (including employers, students and representative from the respective discipline).

2.1.9 The institution should provide with its selection proposal on the basis of authorized – and – legally empowered NCEA experts’ pool pursuant to numbers, composition and representation of the evaluation panel set up by the commission. Then, the evaluation experts will be appointed by the decree of the NCEA Secretariat Office’s Director forasmuch as that the institution confirmed legitimately that there is not any conflicts of interests with the nominated evaluation experts.

2.1.10 The coordinator will hand out the self-evaluation report to the evaluation panel and ensure that the institution provides with preparatory conditions and appointments for site-visit of the panel througha negotiation, within 10 days after concluding a contract. Meanwhile, responsibilities and obligations, working conditions, timeline and wages as well as moral principles of the parties should be specified on the contract in details.

2.1.11 The experts will scrutinize carefully the self-evaluation report and supplementary materials and draft the preliminary evaluation reportwithin 14 days before paying the site-visit to the institution.

2.1.12 The coordinator and leader of the evaluation panel will visit to the institution and ensure that everything is ready on eve of the site – visit.

2.1.13 The evaluation panel will work at the institution for 3 – 5 days, collect information and data required for to conduct the external review for the self evaluation and make analysis on it. The coordinator should work with the panel during this period.

2.1.14 The evaluation panel will draft the evaluation report with evidence-based legitimate recommendations and problems taken into consideration, within 15 days after paying the site visit.

2.1.15 The respective commission will receive the draft of the evaluation report, screens it and thereafter, will submit it and gets feedbacks regarding information, data and explanations as basis, within 10 days.

2.1.16 The evaluation experts will hand over the report to the respective commission within 10 days as soon as they reflect the feedbacks from the institution and then, finalize the evaluation report by stressing precisely their basis of proposal for the accreditation decision.

2.1.17 The evaluation experts should formulate the conclusion by selecting the best of three variable choices; “fully – met”, “provisionally – met”and “not – met” the criteria and for this proposal. Meanwhile, they should articulate the basis for the proposal accurately.

Step of the accreditation decision –making

2.1.18 The commission will discuss the evaluation report and respective conclusion through the nearest scheduled meeting and hence, the reviewing process will be finalized.

2.1.19 If the conclusion made by the evaluation panel confirms that the institution meets criteria fully (fully – met), it will draft a proposal of the commission on accrediting for a term of 5 yearson the basis of relevant evidences. If the conclusion confirms that the institution meets criteria provisionally (met – provisionally), it will draft a proposal of the commission on accrediting for a term of 1 or 2 years on the basis of relevant evidences. The proposal will be submitted to the nearest scheduled meeting of the Governing Board for a decision – making discussion. However, if the conclusion of the evaluation panel shows that the institution doesn’t meet the criteria (not –met), it will submit a statement letter on “the external evaluation made at the given institution” and hence, the reviewing process will be finalized.

2.1.20 The Governing Board will validate the accreditation term on the basis of the proposal of the commission and conclusion of the evaluation panel. The institution will be enlisted into the official registration and respective materials of accreditation will be registered at and archived in the NCEA Archive within 3 days after the accreditation decision is made.

2.2 The program accreditation will have following steps and procedures.

Step of conducting the self-evaluation:

2.2.2 Upon the self-evaluation report is discussed and approved via the Committee of the Prgram at the given HEI, a request /application form/ on accreditation will be submitted to the NCEA Secretariat Office.

2.2.3 The NCEA Secretariat Office will accept only the request that meet below conditions;

a. Data on the application form must be complete and accurate.

b. Information specified on the application form must be potential to be evident through information on the institution’s website and official documents.

c. Information regarding the program must be potential to be evident through information on the institution’s website and official documents.

2.2.4 The Secretariat Office will scrutinize accurately therequest within 10 days after receiving the request and if it is acceptable, it will appoint a coordinator, invoices costs related to the accreditation and conclude a contract with the institution. The office will conclude a three-sided contract between Secretariat Office, HEI and Field Committee and hence, will stipulate responsibilities and obligations of contractor parties and conditions of payment and annexes the timelines with all phases, timings and responsible bodies until a decision is made.

2.2.5 The Chairperson of the respective field committee will appoint a mentor who is charged to act with representation of the given field committee’s functions and assigned to work from the beginning of the accreditation process until the finalizing the process. The mentor will provide with a methodological advice for self-evaluation and external evaluation in accordance with the specialized requirements and criteria for academic programs that was set–up by the Field Committee.

2.2.6 The coordinator will serve to coordinate parties involved in the accreditation process and provide with methodological guidelines and advices for implementing responsibilities and obligations stipulated in 2.2.4 of this procedure, on behalf of the Secretariat Office.

2.2.7 The team of program should draft and submit its self-evaluation report in accordance with the guidelines provided by the coordinator and mentor within 3 months after the contract is concluded. The coordinator will scrutinize, in collaboration with the mentor, the self-evaluation report and supplementary data within 10 days after receiving the report. If there is any incomplete and inaccurate, the coordinator can return the report to the institution and accordingly, the institution submits back to the coordinator by eliminating detected inaccuracy and incompleteness within 7 days.

2.2.8 If the self-evaluation report and supplementary data are complete and accurate, the coordinator and mentor will hand out it to the respective field committee, by accompanying with reference letter.

Step of conducting a reviewing process

2.2.9 The respective field committee will screen the self-evaluation report within 10 days after receiving the report with the coordinator’s reference letter. If the self-evaluation phase is completely satisfied to requirements of this procedure, the commission will start the accreditation process and assign an external evaluation panel, in associated with the respective commission. The evaluation panel will be consisted of 3 – 5 experts (peers), who are from the given discipline, fully qualified and experienced to perform the external evaluation. If the given HEI submit a request to get several accredited at once, the commission will make a decision in regard of extending the peer panel and forming up independent team to work on it. It aims to involve 1 person at least from any of professional association, employer and student into the panel.

2.2.10 The institution should provide with its selection proposal on the basis of authorized – and – legally empowered NCEA experts’ pool pursuant to numbers, composition and representation of the evaluation panel set up by the commission. Then, the evaluation experts will be appointed by the decree of the NCEA Secretariat Office’s Director forasmuch as that the institution confirmed legitimately that there is not any conflicts of interests with the nominated evaluation experts.

2.2.11 The coordinator will hand out the self-evaluation report to the evaluation panel and ensure that the institution provides with preparatory conditions and appointments for site-visit of the panel through a negotiation, within 10 days after concluding a contract. Meanwhile, responsibilities and obligations, working conditions, timeline and wages as well as moral principles of the parties should be specified on the contract in details.

2.2.12 The experts will scrutinize carefully the self-evaluation report and supplementary materials and prepare the preliminary evaluation reportwithin 14 days before paying the site-visit to the institution.

2.2.13 The coordinator and leader of the evaluation panel will visit to the institution and make sure that everything is ready on eve of the site – visit.

2.2.14 The evaluation panel will work at the institution for 3 – 5 days, collect information and data required for to conduct the external review for the self evaluation and make analysis on it. The coordinator and mentor should co-operate with the panel during this period.

2.2.15 The evaluation panel will draft the evaluation report with evidence-based legitimate recommendations and problems taken into consideration, within 15 days after paying the site visit.

2.2.16 The respective field committee will receive the draft of the evaluation report, screens it and thereafter, will submit it and gets feedbacks regarding information, data and explanations as basis, within 10 days.

2.2.17 The evaluation experts will hand over the report to the respective field committee within 10 days as soon as they reflect the feedbacks from the institution and then, finalize the evaluation report by stressing precisely their basis of proposal for the accreditation decision.

2.2.18 The evaluation experts should formulate the conclusion by selecting the best of three variable choices; “fully – met”, “provisionally – met” and “not – met” the criteria and for this proposal. Meanwhile, they should articulate the basis for the proposal accurately.

2.2.19 Step of the accreditation decision –making

2.2.20 The field committee will discuss the evaluation report and respective conclusion through the nearest scheduled meeting and hence, the reviewing process will be finalized.

2.2.21 If the conclusion made by the evaluation panel confirms that the institution meets criteria fully (fully – met), it will draft a proposal of the field committee on accrediting for a term of 5 years on the basis of relevant evidences. If the conclusion confirms that the institution meets criteria provisionally (met – provisionally), it will draft a proposal of the field committee on accrediting for a term of 1 or 2 years on the basis of relevant evidences. The proposal will be submitted to the nearest scheduled meeting of the Governing Board for a decision – making discussion. However, if the conclusion of the evaluation panel shows that the institution doesn’t meet the criteria (not –met), it will submit a statement letter on “the external evaluation made at the given institution” and hence, the reviewing process will be finalized.

2.2.22 The Governing Board will validate the accreditation term on the basis of the proposal of the field committee and conclusion of the evaluation panel. The institution will be enlisted into the official registration and respective materials of accreditation will be registered at and archived in the NCEA Archive within 3 days after the accreditation decision is made.

2.3 The NCEA will implement following procedures in order to approve and register a program, which was accredited by the registered and empowered international or foreign quality assurance agency.

2.3.1 The NCEA will follow a specialized procedure for registering foreign and international quality assurance agencies, which are intending to do business in the education sector of Mongolia, in its own official registration.

2.3.2 It will approve a nationally – accredited program, which is offered by the HEI accredited by trhe NCEA, to be get accredited by the entitled quality assurance agency that enlisted into the NCEA registration, as per Section 2.3.1 of this procedure.

2.3.3 The HEI, which is intending to make a request for the accreditation from the entitled – and – registered foreign and international quality assurance agency, must inform officially about its intention to the MNCEA.

2.3.4 The NCEA Secretariat Office will review the request and inform whether the NCEA will or will not approve to start the accreditation process within 14 days.

2.3.5 In case of starting the accreditation process, the NCEA Secretariat Office will conclude a contract with the given international quality assurance agency. In this contract, parties will specify steps of the accreditation process, involvements of parties, mutual obligations and responsibilities in details.

2.3.6 The Secretariat Office will appoint a coordinator to keep monitoring (control) in the accreditation process and to ensure implementation of the specified obligations and responsibilities. The coordinator will write a detailed report on the performance and achievements of the given process and have it discussed by the NCEA meeting, with a report of the evaluation panel.

2.3.7 The accreditation procedure implemented by the registered and entitled body and a conclusion of the evaluation panel will be discussed via the NCEA meeting and hence, a decision on whether it will or will not accept the program as accredited internationally will be made.

2.3.8 It will enlist the program into a NCEA official registration and hand out the respective materials to the NCEA Archive.

Three. Decision – making process for accreditation

3.1 It will adhere following process to accredit or not to accredit the institution;

3.1.1 The Higher Education Commission and TVET Commission will discuss a conclusion on how the evaluation report by the evaluation panel is meeting with set-up criteria via its regular meeting and then, make a decision to approve or not to approve the conclusion.

3.1.2 A proposal of the accreditation decision will be formulated by selecting the best of three variable choices; “fully – met” if the institution meets criteria completely, “provisionally – met” if the institution meets criteria provisionally and “not – met” the criteria if the institution doesn’t meet the criteria. Meanwhile, they should articulate the basis for the proposal accurately. However, if the conclusion of the evaluation panel shows that the institution doesn’t meet the criteria (not –met), it will submit a statement letter on “the external evaluation made at the given institution”.

3.1.3 On the basis of voting results, only a proposal of the accreditation decision and its basis will be discussed through the NCEA Board meeting.

3.1.4 The decision of the NCEA Board’s decision will be proved by majority of votes and hence, a resolution in which stressed accreditation duration will be made.

3.1.5 If the HEI disagrees with a decision made by the Commission or the Board meeting, it can make a complaint to the Appeal Committee.

3.1.6 Responsibility, obligation and rights of the HEI and NCEA to be borne within a validity of the accreditation decision will be regulated by the contract.

3.1.7 Following processes will be adhered for making a decision for the program accreditation;

3.1.8 The Field Committee will discuss a conclusion on how the evaluation report on the given program by the evaluation panel is meeting with set-up criteria via its regular meeting and then, make a decision to approve or not to approve the conclusion.

3.1.9 A proposal of the accreditation decision will be formulated by selecting the best of three variable choices; “fully – met” if the program meets criteria completely, “provisionally – met” if the program meets criteria provisionally and “not – met” the criteria if the program doesn’t meet the criteria. Meanwhile, they should articulate the basis for the proposal accurately. However, if the conclusion of the evaluation panel shows that the program doesn’t meet the criteria (not –met), it will submit a statement letter on “the external evaluation made at the given institution”.

3.1.10 On the basis of voting results, only a proposal of the accreditation decision and its basis will be discussed through the NCEA Board meeting.

3.1.11 The decision of the NCEA Board’s decision will be proved by majority of votes and hence, a resolution in which stressed accreditation duration will be made.

3.1.12 If provider /team/ of the program disagrees with a decision made by the Commission or the Board meeting, it can make a complaint to the Appeal Committee.

3.1.13 Responsibility, obligation and rights of the provider of the program and NCEA to be borne within a validity of the accreditation decision will be regulated by the contract.

Four. Making changes into the decision on accreditation

4.2 The NCEA can change the validity of accreditation in following conditions;

 The progressive report shows that indicators and performance descriptors, which are basis for accreditation, turned down than the accredited period.

 Basic indicators that are basis for making evaluation in the activities of the HEI or program shows sequent decline for 2 years.

4.3 The NCEA can make the accreditation invalid in following conditions;

 The HEI or program is no longer to fulfill the accreditation criteria due to large-scaled changes in naming and operationalization.

 The competent body makes a decision to liquidate or reconstruct the given HEI.

 Any breach of respective laws, regulations, procedures and normative set up by the state administrative body is affirmed by the assessment (monitoring) activity by the state administrative body or legislative organizations.

4.4 The following procedure must be adhered when changing or making invalid the validity of accreditation;

4.4.1 The NCEA receives the progressive report, makes analysis and make a conclusion each year in accordance with the contract established between the NCEA and accredited HEI.

4.4.2 Prior to making a decision on changing or making invalid the validity of accreditation, the NCEA should inform about it to the given HEI through an official letter and announce it to the public via media.

4.4.3 The respective commission will appoint a working team with at least 3 members at the HEI on which conditions specified at 4.2 & 4.3 of this procedure may arisen, and have a conclusion made by the working team.

4.4.4 Via the commission meeting, it will discuss the conclusion of the working team and a voting will be done with two options including “making the accreditation invalid” and “changing the validity of accreditation”.

4.4.5 If the majority voted for an option of and “changing the validity of accreditation”, re-voting will be done in regard of the duration of the accreditation validity. The provision 3.5 of this procedure will be adhered for this voting.

4.4.6 The meeting decision will be gone into valid by the majority voting.

4.4.7 The decision made by the NCEA will be informed to the HEI and to the public via media.