Independent assessment, recognition
and improvement of education quality
Professional evaluation of educational programmes and quality management systems for universities, colleges and technical colleges
About the agency
The Interecoms Education Quality Assessment Agency operates within the Interecoms Quality Systems Certification Centre
Register No. 86
Professional and public accreditation evaluation of educational programmes
Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education registerRegister No. 97
Professional and public accreditation of secondary vocational education programmes, corresponding continuing professional programmes and basic vocational training programmes
Russian Ministry of Education registerQS Interecoms has experience assessing and certifying educational organisations' quality management systems (QMS) against GOST R ISO requirements and assessing internal university QMS
Professional and public accreditation of educational programmes
Professional assessment of university or college programmes: learning content, preparation conditions and graduate outcomes
What it is for
When a programme team plans changes, it needs to understand internal indicators and employers' perceptions of preparation. External evaluation compares programme design with professional practice and substantiates development directions
What is assessed
A specific programme is reviewed: its level, focus, content and delivery conditions. Specify each programme if submitting several, allowing common materials and features needing separate attention to be identified
What to demonstrate to experts
Explain graduates' intended professional tasks and how the programme prepares them. Show employer participation, practical assignments, teaching work and evidence of outcomes. The assessment content is described in nine areas below under What We Assess
How to use results
Expert findings identify programme strengths and support a justified improvement plan. Accreditation decisions follow the established procedure. Applying or paying does not guarantee a positive outcome
An external perspective shows the programme through employers' eyes: links between learning and practice, evidence of graduate preparation and changes to prioritise
What we assess
We examine how programme content, teachers' work, employer involvement and internal assessment mechanisms relate to graduate preparation outcomes
The following combines assessment areas, preparation materials and indicators from the NA RKI methodology of 12 April 2019. Conditions for applying it to a programme are clarified when agreeing the procedure
Nine thematic sections are not equivalent to the methodology's seven scoring groups. The maximum is 100 points; weights for groups 1–7 are 10 / 20 / 20 / 15 / 10 / 20 / 5. Percentages describe indicators; points describe their assessment weight
Section 4 specifies at least 70 points. No automatic accreditation decision is made on this page
0101 Programme demand
We examine which industry and employer needs the programme meets. Applicants' interest and organisations' support for specialist preparation both matter
What to prepare
Prepare admission data, organisation-funded tuition agreements, scholarships and grants to discuss demand on a factual basis
Methodology indicators
Clause 6.1: at least 15% for education funded by legal entities. Clause 6.4: at least 2 applicants per place; exceptions are continuing professional education and higher/secondary vocational programmes with exclusively fee-paying admissions. Clause 6.5: scholarship and grant recipients — at least 10%
Group 6; indicators 6.1, 6.4 and 6.50202 Professional orientation
We assess links between graduate competencies and professional tasks. The programme must explain the activities it prepares for and the outcomes demonstrating graduate readiness
What to prepare
Discussion materials: intended competencies, professional standards used and mapping learning outcomes to professional tasks
Methodology indicators
Group 1 — 10 points. Evidence of the professional basis for intended competencies is required
Group 1; indicator 1.10303 Employer involvement
We examine actual employer involvement in programme development and delivery: content discussions, practical assignments, placements and assessment of preparation. Supplement cooperation agreements with examples of joint work
What to prepare
Prepare minutes, reviews, employer proposals and evidence of programme changes made
Methodology indicators
Group 4 — 15 points: 4.1 — 10; 4.2 — 5. Period for 4.1 materials: bachelor's — 4 years; master's and secondary vocational programmes — 2 years; continuing professional education — 1 year. Under 4.2, involvement is confirmed annually
Group 40404 Programme content and structure
We examine how courses, modules, placements and assessment materials ensure stated outcomes, focusing also on resources for practical delivery
What to prepare
Useful materials include curricula, course and placement materials, assessment tasks, equipment and electronic resource information. Show how content is updated
Methodology indicators
Group 2 — 20 points, 5 each for 2.1–2.4. Group 3 proportions of employer-approved materials: higher education — at least 30%; secondary vocational education — at least 50%; continuing professional education — 100%
Group 2; indicators 3.1–3.40505 Staffing
We review teachers' experience and links with professional practice. Quality preparation requires technological and workplace knowledge to be updated and used in teaching
What to prepare
Prepare work experience, professional development, retraining and internship information and evidence of practising industry specialists' involvement in teaching
Methodology indicators
Indicator 3.5 — 6 points. Professional development or retraining in relevant organisations over the last 3 years — 70%; professional experience for specialised courses — 100%; combining the primary teaching role with industry work — 25%. The source equates relevant internships with practical experience
Indicator 3.50606 Practical training
We examine how students acquire professional problem-solving experience: placement sites, equipment, support and assessment of results
What to prepare
Show tasks, placement conditions, mentor involvement and completed work, linking programme descriptions with actual student experience
Methodology indicators
Indicator 3.1: at least 15% of laboratories equipped with modern instruments and equipment. The source footnote concerns technology programmes and allows the accrediting body to set the threshold. Placements also appear in 2.1–2.2 and 4.1–4.2; no additional points are awarded for repeating them here
Indicators 2.1–2.2, 3.1 and 4.1–4.20707 Learning outcomes
We examine evidence of achieved preparation. External professional assessment and professional competition results supplement internal assessments
What to prepare
Prepare independent assessment documents and professional achievement evidence. Every indicator needs a period, participant composition and clear calculation basis
Methodology indicators
Group 5 — 10 points, 5 each for 5.1 and 5.2. Under 5.1, ranges remain 10–50% for higher and secondary vocational education, 10–70% for retraining and 10–30% for professional development. The maximum is achieved during accreditation and considered in the next procedure. Under 5.2, winners and prize-winners must be at least 10% of students
Group 50808 Graduate demand
We review employer feedback and practical use of final project results to discuss the professional value of preparation through examples
What to prepare
Prepare relevant organisations' feedback, information on practical use of final projects and observation period explanations
Methodology indicators
Under 6.2, practical use of final qualification projects: secondary vocational and bachelor's — at least 10%; master's — at least 20%; continuing professional education — at least 20%. Under 6.3, feedback periods: bachelor's — 4 years; master's and secondary vocational — 2 years; continuing professional — 1 year. Points: 6.2 — 4; 6.3 — 5
Indicators 6.2–6.30909 Additional recognition and calculation accuracy
The source methodology's seventh group concerns additional accreditation recognition, weighted at 5 points. It is not equivalent to the Quality Assurance System card
Group 3 weights for 3.1–3.5: 5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 6; group 6 weights for 6.1–6.5: 3 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 4
Consult the full source for indicator composition, proportion denominators and application conditions. Clause 6.1 mentions graduates and students; 6.2 mentions graduates and projects. Ranges have not been replaced with arbitrarily selected percentages
The conclusion template's wording of the 70-point threshold differs from Section 4. The Section 4 rule is retained here; final interpretation belongs to the applicable procedure
How professional and public accreditation works
A clear process from initial enquiry to discussion of assessment results
- 01
Enquiry
Specify the educational organisation, programme and enquiry purpose. Education level, delivery location and previous graduate cohorts matter for defining the work
- 02
Clarifying conditions
Initial information supports discussion of assessment feasibility, procedure, materials and interaction format. Scope, timeframes and cost are agreed before evaluation
- 03
Preparation
The programme team organises assessment materials. A coordinator and document transfer method are agreed. Check completeness and how the information interrelates at this stage
- 04
Expert evaluation
Experts review documents and preparation outcomes and clarify submissions. Interviews, visits and other interactions follow the procedure and agreed plan
- 05
Conclusion and decision
Expert findings are documented for established review. The organisation receives the result and specified next actions. Positive-result documents are issued following the corresponding decision
- 06
Using the results
Recommendations support programme change discussions. Status confirmation, change review and reapplication follow accreditation conditions
What to prepare
- Programme description, curriculum, course and placement materials;
- Mapping professional tasks to learning outcomes;
- Teacher, equipment and learning resource information;
- Evidence of actual employer participation;
- Anonymised preparation results and graduate information;
- Examples of internal assessment and programme improvements.
Exact data and periods are clarified for your programme. Do not send students' personal data documents through the general form
From assessment to quality improvement
We help universities and secondary vocational education organisations develop internal assessment and organise education quality improvement
Internal education quality assessment
Student feedback, outcomes and employer views help when they lead to decisions. We discuss collected data, who analyses them and how change outcomes are checked
How support is organised
First we discuss the expected outcome and initial situation, then agree changes and team participation. After planned activities, we review results and next steps
Possible outcomes
Depending on the task, these include process proposals, improvement plans, working documents and internal assessment recommendations. Specific outputs are fixed in the agreed support scope
Participants' roles
Change support and independent assessment have different purposes. Participants' roles and subsequent assessment conditions are defined separately when agreeing services
Quality assurance system
We discuss how assessment results develop the programme: prioritising, assigning responsibility and checking change effects
Discussion materials: internal quality reviews, feedback, improvement plans and examples of checking results
This is a development area, not a separate NA RKI scoring group
Independent assessment is based on expert evaluation
Substantive programme review combines knowledge of education, professional practice and assessment methods
Understanding the programme
Programme level, focus, learning arrangements and assessment methods matter. Identical formal materials may work differently across programmes and must be considered accordingly
Connection with professional practice
Industry experience informs discussion of graduates' tasks and how learning assignments relate to them. Employer participation makes the link concrete
Well-founded conclusions
Expert findings must rely on materials and established criteria. Scope, interaction and required specialisations are discussed during preparation
Public documents and materials
Methodological basis
The criteria use the published NA RKI methodology of 12 April 2019. The full source details indicators, calculation basis and application conditions
Need a document for your programme? Specify the organisation, programme and request subject in the form below