Rules for the System of Quality Assurance of Educational, Creative and Related Activities and of Internal Evaluation of the Quality of Educational, Creative and Related Activities

of the University of Economics (of 18 July 2017, effective of 1 September 2017)

The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports registered pursuant to Section 36 (2) of Act No.  111/1998 Coll., on higher education institutions and on amendments and supplements to some other acts (the Act on Higher Education Institutions) on 18 July 2017 under reference number  MSMT-19508/2017 the Rules for the System of Quality Assurance  of Educational, Creative and Related Activities and of Internal Evaluation of the Quality of Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the University of Economics Prague.
……………………………………
Mgr. Karolína Gondková, m.p.
Director of the Higher Education Institutions Department

Part One
General Provisions

Article 1
Introductory Provisions

(1) This internal regulation defines the system of quality assurance and internal evaluation of the quality of educational, creative and related activities of the University of Economics Prague (hereinafter referred to as the “VSE”)

(2) Unless stated otherwise, the term “quality” shall be understood to be the quality of educational, creative and related activities of the VSE.

(3) For the purpose of this internal regulation, the terms stated below shall mean:

  1. “publishing” –  placement in the public section of the VSE website,
  2. “making accessible” – placement in the non-public section of the VSE website or other types of placement allowing for remote access of those persons and entities who are to have the access to the issue concerned,
  3. “sending off” – sending via email to a school email address of the recipient; should the sender be an employee or student of the VSE, it shall also be necessary to send from a school email address.

Article 2
Breakdown of the Rules for the

System of Quality Assurance and Internal Evaluation of Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the VSE

(1) The Rules of the System of Quality Assurance and Internal Evaluation of Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the VSE consists of:

  1. The Rules of Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance;
  2. The Rules of Internal Accreditation;
  3. The Rules of Procedure of the Internal Evaluation Board of  the VSE.

Part Two
The Rules for Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance

Article 3
Parts of the System for Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance

(1) The System for Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance at the VSE consists of assurance and internal evaluation of the quality of:

  1. educational activities and their results,
  2. creative activities and their results,
  3. international relations,
  4. VSE employee activities,
  5. study resources and their availability,
  6. care for and support of students,
  7. cooperation with practice,
  8. information systems.

(2) Raising public awareness shall be part of the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance. Publication of documents is governed by the Act, the Statute of the VSE, this internal regulation and other provisions of the VSE.

(3) The scope, powers and responsibilities within the framework of the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance at the VSE and in the scope laid down by the Act, the Statute of the VSE, this internal regulation and other provisions of the VSE are vested in:

  1. the Rector and Vice-Rectors,
  2. the VSE Internal Evaluation Board,
  3. the Scientific Board of the VSE,
  4. the Academic Senate of the VSE,
  5. the Board of Directors of the VSE,
  6. the Bursar,
  7. the International Advisory Board,
  8. directors of other entities of the VSE pursuant to Article 16 of the Statute of the VSE,
  9. managers of departments of the Rector´s Office pursuant to Article 17 of the Statute of the VSE,
  10. Deans and Vice-Deans,
  11. Department Heads,
  12. Scientific Boards of Faculties,
  13. Academic Senates of Faculties,
  14. faculty Secretaries,
  15. Faculty Accreditation Boards,
  16. Subject-area Boards of doctoral degree programmes (hereinafter referred to as a “Subject-Area Board”),
  17. trainers of doctoral degree programme students,
  18. study programme guarantors,
  19. minor specialisations guarantors,
  20. subject guarantors.

(4) The system of assurance and internal evaluation is based on ENQA, EQUIS, EPAS, and AACSB internal standards.

Article 4
The Rector and Vice-Rectors

(1) The Rector:

  1. is responsible for implementation of the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance,
  2. within the scope and constraints provided for in the Act, other legal provisions and this internal regulation issues directives, instructions and measures in order to ensure the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance,
  3. initiates changes in and supplements to the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance,
  4. evaluates, on an ongoing basis, activities of Vice-Rectors, Deans and Heads of other university entities in the area of internal evaluation and quality assurance and conducts annual appraisal interviews with them.

(2) In his/her measures, the Rector specifies the responsibilities of individual Vice-Rectors for the coordination of activities within the framework of the system for internal evaluation and quality assurance.

Article 5
The VSE Internal Evaluation Board

(1) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board:

  1. manages the course of internal quality evaluation,
  2. draws up the Report on Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance as part of the regular internal quality evaluation conducted once in four years,
  3. performs the scope of activities of the Scientific Board of the VSE specified under Article 10 (7) of the Statute of the VSE.

(2) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may establish working groups and use consultants.

(3) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board acts in accordance with its Rules of Procedure, which are an integral part of this internal regulation.

Article 6
International Advisory Board

(1) The International Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as the “IAB”) is an international consultancy representing the Rector. The IAB operates in the area of internal evaluation and quality assurance within the scope of matters submitted to the Board for discussion by the Rector.

(2) The Rector appoints and dismisses members of the IAB from among foremost international experts involved in education and from among employers’ representatives; membership of the IAB is not terminated at the expiry of the Rector´s term of office.

(3) The IAB consists of at least nine members and at most fifteen members.

(4) The IAB expresses their opinion on matters submitted to them for discussion by the Rector.

(5) The IAB has a quorum if the majority of all its members are present.

(6) The IAB meets at least once an academic year. The meeting is chaired by the Rector.

(7) Opinions of the IAB concerning matters under paragraph 3 form an obligatory part of the Report on Internal Evaluation.

Article 7
Deans and Vice-Deans

(1) Deans:

  1. are responsible for implementing the system for internal evaluation and quality assurance within the faculty concerned;
  2. decide, at the proposal of the Accreditation Board of the Faculty, or a Subject-area Board, on awarding, significantly changing or removing accreditation of subjects within bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree programmes implemented by individual departments, and decide on awarding, significantly changing or removing accreditation of minor specialisations implemented by the faculty concerned; should a Dean not uphold the proposal of the Accreditation Board of the Faculty he/she is obliged to duly justify such decision;
  3. issue faculty-binding directives, instructions and measures, within the scope and constraints laid down in this internal regulation, in order to ensure the system for internal evaluation and quality assurance is implemented at the faculty concerned;
  4. evaluate, on an ongoing basis, the activities of Vice-Deans, Heads of Departments, degree programmes’ guarantors pertaining to the area of internal evaluation and quality assurance, and create conditions for the development of their educational and creative activities and conduct annual appraisal interviews with them.

(2) Deans specify the responsibilities of individual Vice-Deans for coordinating activities within the framework of the system of internal evaluation and quality assurance.

Article 8
Heads of Departments

(1) Heads of Departments:

  1. are responsible for teaching and evaluating the quality of subjects guaranteed by their departments;
  2. are responsible for the focus and organisation of the creative activities of their Department;
  3. appoint and remove subject guarantors of bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes; the same applies to doctoral degree programmes, however, only with the prior consent of the guarantor of the given doctoral degree programme;
  4. conduct annual appraisal interviews with academics working in their department,
  5. submit proposals to the Dean on improvements and solutions to the problems arising from educational, creative and related activities;
  6. actively create conditions for academics working in their department with the aim to support their professional growth, enhance their qualifications, improve educational and creative activities, encourage participation in domestic and international projects and/or support their participation in international educational activities;
  7. resolve complaints/suggestions of students concerning the quality of education provided by the department concerned.

(2) The provisions of paragraph 1 apply mutandis mutatis to the heads of scientific-pedagogical entities being treated as departments.

Article 9
Faculty Accreditation Boards

(1) A measure issued by the relevant Dean specifies which of the Dean’s advisory bodies will assume the role of the Faculty Accreditation Board, unless the Faculty Accreditation Board has already been established as an advisory body to the Dean. The measure of the Dean defines, in particular, the method of appointing the Chair and members of the Faculty Accreditation Board and the rules for its meetings.

(2) The Faculty Accreditation Board:

  1. discusses proposals to award, change or remove accreditation of bachelor’s or master’s degree programmes prior to their submission to the Faculty Scientific Board;
  2. discusses proposals to award, change or remove accreditation of minor specialisations provided by the faculty;
  3. discusses proposals of Head of Departments to award, significantly change or remove accreditation of a subject of a given bachelor’s or master’s degree programme guaranteed by a department of the faculty concerned; it may recommend removing accreditation of a subject even without a proposal by the relevant Head of Department;
  4. assesses, when discussing regular evaluation reports under letters e) and f), bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes held by the given faculty in terms of their up-to-dateness and relevance in relation to requirements of practice, experience of graduates and initiatives of students; also assesses, on an ongoing basis, the strengths and weaknesses of degree programmes with regard to external opportunities and threats and suggests corrective measures;
  5. approves regular evaluation reports submitted by guarantors of bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes;
  6. discusses the regular evaluation report on the employability of graduates developed at the VSE-wide level;
  7. expresses opinions on other documents submitted to it by the Dean or its Chair.

(3) The Faculty Accreditation Board is obliged to comply with the Act, VSE and faculty internal regulations, standards applying to accreditation of degree programmes, opinions of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board as well as results of external evaluations.

(4) In its activities, the Faculty Accreditation Board uses documentation concerning degree programmes, minor specialisations and subjects.

(5) Guarantors of degree programmes, minor specialisations, or subjects and Heads of Departments are entitled to participate in meetings of the Faculty Accreditation Board and express their opinions on issues being discussed and on issues concerning relevant degree programmes, minor specialisations, or subjects.

(6) Activities of the Faculty Accreditation Board do apply to doctoral degree programmes.

Article 10
Subject-area Board

(1) A Subject-area Board shall monitor and evaluate studies with doctoral degree programmes. The Subject-area Board is accountable to the Dean for its activities.

(2) A doctoral degree programme guarantor shall be the Chair of the relevant Subject-area Board. After previous discussions by the Faculty Scientific Board, the Dean may appoint and remove other members of the Subject-area Board.  If the joint Faculty Scientific Board has been established for degree programmes pertaining to the same field of study, members of such Subject-area Board are guarantors of all relevant programmes. The Dean shall appoint and remove the Chair of such joint Subject-area Board from among guarantors of the programmes in question.

(3) A Subject-area Board shall have a minimum of seven members, where at least two of them are not VSE employees.

(4) A Subject-area Board shall have quorum if the majority of its members are present. Resolutions shall be adopted by the simple majority of all members present.

(5) A Subject-area Board shall meet at least once an academic year; meetings are presided over by the Chair of a Subject-area Board. Minutes shall be made of such meetings and shall be submitted to the Dean of the faculty which accredited the given degree programme, to the Vice-Dean designated under Article 7, and to the Vice-Rector designated under Article 4 (2). The Vice-Dean designated under Article 7 (2) shall provide organisational and administrative support to the Subject-area Board and shall methodologically coordinate activities of Subject-area Boards of the faculty concerned.

(6) A Subject-area Board mainly:

  1. cares for updating and developing a given accredited doctoral degree programme, initiates proposals to modify current degree programmes which are then submitted to the Scientific Board of the Faculty for its approval;
  2. discusses proposals of Heads of Departments to award, significantly change or remove accreditation of subjects of a doctoral degree programme;
  3. approves regular evaluation reports of doctoral degree programme guarantors;
  4. monitors and assesses current studies within the given doctoral degree programme;
  5. expresses its opinion on the proposal of significant modifications to the content of the state doctoral examination;
  6. solves technical and organisational aspects of the given doctoral degree programme in cooperation with the guarantor of the relevant doctoral study programme and with supervisors.

Article 11
Degree Programme Guarantor

(1) With previous approval by the relevant Faculty Scientific Board, the Dean may appoint and remove a degree programme guarantor. In accordance with Section 70 (2), the first sentence, the guarantor of a master’s degree programme may only be an associate professor, professor, or visiting professor who is a member of the academic staff of the VSE and whose focus corresponds to the given degree programme or to a programme of closely related content. Should it be a degree programme held at the faculty, the guarantor of such degree programme may be merely a member of academic staff working at the relevant faculty.

(2) The guarantor of a degree programme held at the VSE is appointed and removed by the Rector from among members of the academic staff of the VSE with the previous consent of the VSE Scientific Board.

(3) A degree programme guarantor is responsible for the quality of and due implementation of  the degree programme for which he/she is a guarantor.

(4) The guarantor of a bachelor or master degree programme:

  1. is responsible for maintaining the profile of a graduate as it is defined in the accreditation of the degree programme in the scope of professional knowledge and skills corresponding with the objectives and focus of studies, and for defining the content and scope of the final state examination and its parts so that it is in accordance with the focus of studies and the profile of a graduate;
  2. cares for developing knowledge within the framework of the degree programme which he/she guarantees;
  3. is responsible for maintaining documentation concerning the relevant degree programme, including information recorded in the VSE Information System;
  4. submits the degree programme guarantor´s evaluation report to the Accreditation Board of the relevant faculty;
  5. regularly evaluates information on the employability of graduates of the given degree programme;
  6. is responsible for the content of entrance examinations to the degree programme of which he/she is a guarantor;
  7. organises a meeting, at least once an academic year, with students of the degree programme where he/she shall gather their comments concerning the given degree programme; he/she shall report on the meeting’s results to the Faculty Accreditation Board concerned; comments of students may be, with the assent of the Faculty Accreditation of Board, collected using a different suitable method.

(5) A doctoral degree programme guarantor:

  1. is responsible for professional development of the degree programme; in particular he/she coordinates the content preparation of the degree programme and its significant modifications, supervises the quality of its instruction, and evaluates and develops the degree programme as a whole;
  2. solves, in cooperation with the relevant Subject-area Board and supervisors, technical and organisational issues of the degree programme concerned;
  3. is responsible for maintaining documentation of the degree programme, including information recorded in the VSE Information System;
  4. submits regular evaluation reports on the guarantor of the degree programme to the relevant Subject-area Board;
  5. provide guidance to the professional activities of supervisors;
  6. is responsible for the content of entrance examinations to the degree programme of which he/she is a guarantor;
  7. approves an individual study plan of a student and submit it to the Dean for his/her signature.

Article 12
Minor Specialisation Guarantor

(1) After previous approval by the relevant Faculty Accreditation Board, the Dean appoints and removes a minor specialisation guarantor. A minor specialisation guarantor may under Section 70 (2), the first sentence, only be an associate professor, professor, or visiting professor, who is a member of the academic staff of the VSE.

(2) The guarantor of a minor specialisation:

  1. is responsible for defining and maintaining the profile of a graduate of minor specialisation in the scope of professional knowledge and skills corresponding with the objectives and focus of a minor specialisation, and for defining the content and scope of the final state examination and its parts so that it is in accordance with the focus of studies and the profile of a graduate;
  2. cares for developing knowledge within a minor specialisation;
  3. is responsible for maintaining documentation of the minor specialisation, including information recorded in the VSE Information System;
  4. submits regular evaluation reports on the guarantor of the minor specialisation to the Accreditation Board of the Faculty concerned;
  5. expresses his/her opinion on proposals to award, significantly modifies or removes accreditation of a subject taught at the faculty of which he/she is a part or of the study plan of the minor specialisation he/she is a guarantor of; he/she initiates establishment of new subjects.

Article 13
Subject Guarantor

(1) The Head of Department, which is responsible for the instruction of the relevant subject, appoints and removes from among professors, associate professors or, with the exception of doctoral degree programmes, assistant professors having a scientific title or academic title Ph.D., the guarantor of a subject. Should more departments be involved in instruction, the Dean, after discussing the matter with the heads of the departments concerned, appoints and removes the subject guarantor in question.

(2) A subject guarantor:

  1. is responsible for the content, level and development of the given subject;
  2. cares for developing and updating study literature within the subject of which he/she is a guarantor and develop creative activities within the guaranteed subject;
  3. is accountable for the content and development of the subject to the Head of the Department concerned; he/she consults and coordinates the subject with the Heads of Departments and degree programme guarantors as the subject is taught as compulsory within such degree programmes;
  4. draws up the characteristics of the subject, outcomes of learning, the content and methods of instruction as well as literature recommended for studies; he/she ensures that information recorded in the VSE Information System in the accreditation file of the subject is complete;
  5. regularly updates the content of the subject; after discussing the matter with the Heads of the Departments concerned, he/she submits proposals for significant modifications;
  6. discusses with the Heads of Departments concerned, other subject guarantors and relevant degree programme guarantors the effective interlinks, continuation of subjects and restrictions for enrolment to the subject;
  7. coordinates individual teachers of the subject before every semester in which the subject is taught, mainly with respect to instruction methods and demands on students, and provide guidance during the semester;
  8. initiates research projects, publication outputs and other creative activities of lecturers and facilitators so that the latest possible knowledge is involved in the subject;
  9. is responsible for students´ assessment so that assessments are comparable within the given subject;
  10. is responsible for regular evaluation of students´ assessments within the given the subject and for suggestions on how to implement corrective measures.

Article 14
Supervisor of Doctoral Degree Programme Students

(1) The Dean appoints and removes a supervisor of doctoral degree programme students (hereinafter referred to as “supervisor”) upon the proposal of the relevant degree programme guarantor. A supervisor may be a professor, associate professor or a visiting professor, and in exceptional cases when approved by the relevant Scientific Board, another foremost expert having a scientific title or academic title Ph.D.

(2) A supervisor:

  1. puts together, in cooperation with the student, the individual study plan of a student and confirms such plan in the VSE Information System;
  2. cares for the professional development of a student, i.e. recommends study literature, cooperates in preparing scientific publications, including the student in scientific tasks of the department as well as in other projects, assists with getting in contact with international entities and monitors how an individual study plan is being met;
  3. checks annually how an individual study plan has been met and draws up and records in the VSE Information System a Report on the Course of Studies.

Article 15
Degree Programme Documentation

(1) Degree programme documentation is maintained in order to ensure comparability and standardisation of processes of internal evaluation and quality assurance. The guarantor of the degree programme is responsible for its maintenance and updating on an ongoing basis.

(2) Degree programme documentation is recorded in the VSE Information System and is accessible for all persons and bodies involved in the process of internal evaluation and quality assurance at the VSE. The following is included in degree programme documentation:

  1. the application for accreditation and the decision on its award, modification or removal;
  2. documentation of compulsory and optional subjects of the relevant degree programme of which a student has to choose some;
  3. a sample degree plan;
  4. as regards a master degree programme, a list of minor specialisations from among which a student may choose one as an optional part of a study plan in accordance with accreditation of a degree programme;
  5. the regular evaluation reports of the guarantor of the degree programme;
  6. other components of the degree programme defined in Section 44 (2) of the Act which are not parts of documentation under letter a) to d).

Article 16

Minor Specialisation Documentation

(1Minor specialisation documentation is maintained in order to ensure comparability and standardisation of processes of internal evaluation and quality assurance. A minor specialisation guarantor is responsible for its maintenance and updating on an ongoing basis.

(2) Minor specialisation documentation is recorded in the VSE Information System and is accessible for all persons and bodies involved in the process of internal evaluation and quality assurance at the VSE. The following is included in minor specialisation documentation:

  1. the draft accreditation of the minor specialisation and the decision on its award, modification or removal;
  2. documentation of compulsory and optional subjects of the relevant degree programme of which a student must choose one/some;
  3. a sample degree plan;
  4. the regular evaluation reports of the guarantor of the minor specialisation.

Article 17
Subject Documentation

(1) Subject documentation is maintained in order to ensure comparability and standardisation of processes of internal evaluation and quality assurance. A Subject guarantor is responsible for its maintenance and updating on an ongoing basis.

(2) Subject documentation is recorded in the VSE Information System and is accessible for all persons and bodies involved in the process of internal evaluation and quality assurance at the VSE.

(3) The following is included in subject documentation:

  1. the accreditation file of the subject which encompasses a comprehensive description of the subject including the following compulsory items:
    1. identification,
    2. the subject name in the language of instruction, as well as in Czech and English,
    3. the name, surname and academic titles of its guarantor,
    4. the number of credits should the degree programme be included in the credit system,
    5. the manner of teaching,
    6. the language of instruction,
    7. the content,
    8. the method of instruction,
    9. the specific conditions and the method of assessment;
    10. the list of fundamental and recommended literature,
  1. the outcome of the student survey of the subject and resultant measures;
  2. other parts of subject evaluation pursuant to Article 18 (4) and (5) and resultant measures.

Article 18
Subject Evaluation

(1) Subject evaluation is conducted by students, the guarantor of the subject and the Head of the relevant department; as regards a doctoral degree programme, the Chair of the relevant Subject-area Board is also involved.

(2) Students evaluate the subject within the students´ survey carried out each semester through the VSE Information System. The Vice-Rector designated under Article 4 (2) is responsible for implementation of the students´ survey.

(3) Evaluation of the students´ subject survey is included in subject documentation. The guarantor of the relevant subject carries out evaluation at a subject level; evaluation at a department level is made by the Head of the relevant department. A subject guarantor proposes, in cooperation with the Head of the Department concerned or with the guarantor of the relevant degree programme, or with the Chair of the Subject-area Board in the case of a doctoral degree programme, corrective measures to enhance quality and implements such measures.

(4) The Dean, the guarantor of the relevant degree programme through the Dean, or the relevant Faculty Accreditation Board concerned may require from t Heads of Departments a report on corrective measures adopted and implemented concerning subjects of the given department. Should it be a doctoral degree programme, such report may be required from the degree programme guarantor concerned and the guarantor of the relevant subject.

(5) The Head of the relevant department may, at their discretion, conduct classroom observations. This duty may be delegated to subject guarantors or a Deputy Head of the Department. After the classroom observation a report is drawn up including the respective opinion of the teacher.

Article 19
Evaluation of Graduate Employability

(1) Sources of information on the employability of graduates are as follows:

  1. surveys of graduates during their graduation ceremonies;
  2. regular surveys of graduates and employers carried out by the VSE or by individual faculties;
  3. information from external sources.

(2) At a degree-programme level, a degree programme guarantor is responsible for information specified in paragraph 1. The Rector´s Office and the Office of the Dean of the faculty where the degree programme is held provide the degree programme guarantor concerned with information needed and collaborate with him/her.

Article 20
Ensuring the Quality of Professional Competences of Employees

(1) Members of the academic staff strive for continuous personal development and career growth in their educational and creative activities. At the same time they systematically contribute to building the reputation of the VSE, make use of opportunities to present their expertise to the public and endeavour to enhance their visibility within the meaning of Article 21 (2).

(2) Comprehensive evaluation of a member of the academic staff is conducted by the Head of the relevant department in compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 21 (1) to (3).

(3) Comprehensive evaluation of an employee who is not a member of the academic staff is conducted by his/her supervisor in compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 21 (4).

(4) Comprehensive evaluation of a manager is conducted by his/her supervisor in compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 21 (5).

(5) The frequency of individual comprehensive evaluations is specified in the Rector´s measure. Comprehensive evaluations are conducted at least once in four years.

Article 21
Criteria of Employee Activities Quality Assessment

(1) The criteria for assessing educational and creative activities of academic staff are as follows:

  1. the scope and quality of educational activities, including the method of assessing knowledge and evaluation of students;
  2. the scope and quality of outputs of creative activities;
  3. involvement and success in grant projects within and outside of the VSE, as well as meeting the plan for implementation of grant projects and evaluating results of completed grant projects.

(2) The criteria of visibility of academic staff outside the VSE are as follows:

  1. the scope and results of involvement in international educational activities;
  2. the scope and quality of participation in domestic and international conferences;
  3. the scope and quality of activities worth of special consideration (work on administrative issues of departments and faculties, work in grant agencies, work in editorial, publishing and executive boards of journals, work in subject-area, scientific and academic boards, etc.);
  4. the scope and quality of cooperation with practice;
  5. the scope and quality of presentation in media.

(3) Other criteria of comprehensive evaluation of academic staff are as follows:

  1. meeting the plan for qualification growth;
  2. contribution of a member of academic staff to educational, creative and related activities carried out by the relevant department;
  3. accuracy and quality with which tasks assigned on an ongoing basis by the Head of the Department are met;
  4. compliance with the Ethical Code of the VSE under the resolution of the VSE Ethical Commission.

(4) The criteria for assessing the quality of activities of non-academic staff are as follows:

  1. the scope and results of performing duties and responsibilities;
  2. an effort to increase their qualification;
  3. contribution to the quality of the internal environment of the faculty and the VSE as a whole;
  4. evaluation by students, if applicable.

(5) The criteria of assessing the quality of a manager are as follows:

  1. ability to set a strategy for the overall development of the entity, department or division he/she manages and its successful implementation;
  2. meeting a strategic objective of educational and creative activities of the VSE or a faculty, if the entity operates within a faculty.

Article 22
Cooperation with Practice

(1) The Rector, Vice-Rectors, Deans, Vice-Deans, degree programme guarantors and Heads of Departments create conditions for cooperation with practice, in particular through:

  1. accredited internships and practical training for students;
  2. supervising, in collaboration with practitioners, qualification thesis for practice purposes;
  3. utilising practitioners in subject instruction;
  4. developing and applying case studies in instruction;
  5. contractual research;
  6. professional events held at the VSE.

(2) As regards cooperation with practice, special attention is paid to cooperation with graduates.

(3) All activities carried out within the scope of cooperation with practice are recorded by the Vice-Dean designated pursuant to Article 7 (2), and at the VSE-wide level by the Vice-Rector designated pursuant to Article 4 (2) .

Article 23
Regular Evaluation Reports

(1) The following regular evaluation reports are drawn up at the VSE-wide level within the framework of internal quality assessment:

  1. the Regular Evaluation Report on Admission Procedure(s) at the VSE;
  2. the Regular Evaluation Report on degree programmes and minor specialisations being implemented, and on study results and study success at the VSE;
  3. the Regular Evaluation Report on results of Students´ Surveys at the VSE,
  4. the Regular Evaluation Report on Employability of VSE Graduates;
  5. the Regular Evaluation Report on Scientific-research and other Creative Activities at the VSE and on their Results; this Report may be replaced by a similar report developed for national or international systems for evaluation of creative activities;
  6. the Regular Evaluation Report on VSE International Relations;
  7. the Regular Evaluation Report on VSE Human Resources Development;
  8. the Regular Evaluation Report on Accessibility and Relevance of Study Resources at the VSE;
  9. the Regular Evaluation Report on Support of and Care for VSE students;
  10. the Regular Evaluation Report on Cooperation with Practice;
  11. the Regular Evaluation Report on Development of VSE Information Systems;
  12. the Regular Evaluation Report on Inspection Activities at the VSE.

(2) TheRegular Evaluation Report on Education, Creative and Related Activities of the Faculty is developed at the relevant faculty within the framework of internal quality assessment at the VSE.

(3) The following regular evaluation reports are developed at a degree-programme level and a minor specialisation level within the framework of internal quality assessment at the VSE.:

  1. The Regular Evaluation Report on Implementing a Degree Programme,
  2. The Regular Evaluation Report on Implementing a Minor Specialisation.

(4) Regular Evaluation Reports are drawn up

  1. once a year should it be a report pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) to (f) and (l);
  2. once in four years should it be a report pursuant to paragraph 1 (g) to (k) and pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3.

(5) Vice-rectors provided for in paragraph 4 (2) are responsible for  evaluation reports to be developed. Prior to the submission of reports, the Rector may submit them to one or more bodies defined in Article 8 (3) and (3) of the Statute of the VSE for discussion.

(6) The regular evaluation reports specified in this Article must contain the sections “Principal Conclusions” and “Suggested Measures”. Those parts are published in the public part of the VSE website.

Article 24
The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Degree Programme

(1) The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Degree Programme is drawn up by the guarantor of the relevant degree programme and is submitted for approval to the Accreditation Board of the Faculty concerned should it be either Bachelor´s degree programme or a Master´s degree programme, or to the relevant Subject-area Board should it be a doctoral degree programme.

(2) The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Degree Programme must encompass at least the following parts:

  1. a summary of the development of the given degree programme over the last four years;
  2. a summary of measures adopted upon the results of student surveys, including evaluation of effectiveness of such measures for the last four years;
  3. a summary of results of all parts of the final state examination for the last four years;
  4. suggestions of amendments to the concept of the given degree programme and learning outcomes for the upcoming period.

(3) A Dean and a Faculty Accreditation Board should it be Bachelor´s or Master´s degree programme or the relevant Subject-area Board should it be a doctoral degree programme may request submission of an extraordinary Evaluation Report on Conducting a Degree Programme.

Article 25
The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Minor Specialisation

(1) The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Minor Specialisation is drawn up by the guarantor of the relevant minor specialisation and is submitted for approval by the Accreditation Board of the Faculty concerned.

(2) The Regular Evaluation Report on Conducting a Minor Specialisation must encompass at least the following parts:

  1. a summary of the development of the given minor specialisation over the last four years;
  2. a summary of measures adopted upon the results of student surveys, including evaluation of effectiveness of such measures, for the last four years;
  3. a summary of results of all parts of the final state examination in terms of meeting prescribed results of learning for the last four years;
  4. suggestions of amendments to the concept of the given minor specialisation and learning outcomes for the upcoming period.

(3) A Dean and/or  a Faculty  Accreditation Board may request submission of an extraordinary Evaluation Report on Conducting a Minor Specialisation.

Article 26
The Regular Evaluation Report on Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the Faculty

(1) The Regular Evaluation Report on Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the Facultyis submitted by the Dean for the approval of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board.

(2) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board, or a working group established by this Board, may request additional information on the submitted report from the Dean.

(3) In discussing the Regular Evaluation Report, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board decides on one of the following options:

  1. that it approves of the Regular Evaluation Report of a Faculty without any reservations;
  2. that it approves of the Regular Evaluation Report of a Faculty with a reservation concerning one or more degree programmes or one or more minor specialisations conducted by the faculty concerned; or
  3. that it does not approve the Regular Evaluation Report of a Faculty.

(4) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board will not approve the Regular Evaluation Report of the Faculty if it finds serious deficiencies in the conduct of degree programmes or minor specialisations.

(5) The results of the debate on the Regular Evaluation Report of a Faculty represent underlying reasons for the decision-making of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board regarding internal accreditation of degree programmes of the faculty concerned.

(6) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may request submission of an extraordinary Evaluation Report of a Faculty.

Article 27
Extraordinary Evaluation of a Degree Programme by the

Internal Evaluation Board of the VSE

(1) If the VSE Internal Evaluation Board has approved the Regular Evaluation Report of a Faculty having a reservation to one of the degree programmes or minor specialisations or if the Board has not approved the Regular Evaluation Report, the Board will advise the Dean concerned to adopt corrective measures and provide a reasonable deadline for such measures to be implemented and the Extraordinary Evaluation Report of a Faculty to be submitted.

(2) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board verifies the implementation of corrective measures upon the submission of the Extraordinary Evaluation Report of the degree programme of the minor specialisation concerned.

(3) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may request submission of an Extraordinary Evaluation Report of a degree programme or minor specialisation should it have serious doubts on their implementation. Article 26 applies accordingly to further proceedings.

Article 28
The Report on Internal Quality Evaluation

(1) The Report on Internal Quality Evaluationis drawn up once in four years.

(2) An annual addendum to the Report on Internal Quality Evaluation describes any changes to the system of internal quality evaluation implemented in the past year and any measures adopted.

(3) An integral part of the Report on Internal Quality Evaluation is a list of all degree programmes with suspended internal accreditation in the given year.

(4) The Rector is responsible for the development of the Report on Internal Quality Evaluation. The process of discussing and approving the Report on Internal Quality Evaluation is defined by the Act, other legal provisions and internal regulations of the. VSE

Part Three
The Internal Accreditation Rules

Article 29
Internal Accreditation of a Degree Programme

(1) Internal accreditation of a degree programme in the framework of institutional accreditation is understood to be authorisation to implement a degree programme under Section 78 (2) of the Act.

(2) Internal accreditation of a degree programme made within institutional accreditation and or significant change in internal accreditation of a degree programme is approved by the VSE Internal Evaluation Board upon the proposal of the Scientific Board of the Faculty concerned.

(3) Prior to the approval of the proposal pursuant to paragraph 2 by the relevant Faculty Scientific Board, the Faculty Academic Senate will express its opinion on it.

(4) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may interrupt discussions on the proposal under paragraph 2 and return the proposal to the Faculty Scientific Board concerned to add more information  or for removal of deficiencies. The VSE Internal Evaluation Board sets a reasonable deadline to add additional information or to remove of deficiencies. The deadline may be repeatedly extended at the request of the Dean.

(5) When assessing the proposal under paragraph 2, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board assesses compliance of the proposal with the Act, the accreditation standards applicable in higher education, VSE internal regulations and the standards defined by the Rector´s Directive issued pursuant to paragraph 8.

(6) If it has been established, the relevant Working Group of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board pertaining to the area of education within which a degree programme should be accredited expresses its opinion on the proposal of internal accreditation of a degree programme or on a significant change in internal accreditation

(7) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board decides on the award of accreditation to a degree programme or on a significant change in the internal accreditation of a degree programme no later than 90 days of the receipt of the application. The months of July and August and the interruption period under paragraph 4 are not counted against the given time limit.

(8) The Rector´s Directive on Creating and Implementing Degree Programmes establishes, in particular:

  1. general requirements on creating and implementing degree programmes;
  2. potential specific requirements concerning the creation and implementation of degree programmes for individual types and forms of degree programmes or individual fields of education;
  3. the constituent elements of the proposal for the internal accreditation of a degree programme in the framework of institutional accreditation,
  4. the constituent elements of the application for cancelling limitations of internal accreditation of a degree programme;
  5. the scope of possible amendments to the implementation of a degree programme without any obligation to lodge an application for a significant change in the internal accreditation of a degree programme, including the prerequisites of an announcement of such amendments to the VSE Internal Evaluation Board.

(9) The Rector, prior to issuing the Directive, discusses the Draft Directive pursuant to paragraph 8 or its amendments with the VSE Internal Evaluation Board.

Article 30
Decision on Internal Accreditation of a Degree Programme

(1) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board grants the relevant faculty internal accreditation of a degree programme for a period of 10 years. The accreditation can be awarded for a period shorter than ten years if:

  1. the accreditation of the given degree programme is granted to the faculty for the first time;
  1. the accreditation of the given degree programme is granted specifically with a view to providing its students with the possibility of accomplishing their studies;or
  2. the given degree programme does not guarantee due implementation and development, mainly with respect to personnel provisions, for the period of ten years.

(2) The decision of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board on awarding internal accreditation of a degree programme contains the name and type of the degree programme, the standard time span and, in the case of a bachelor’s or master’s degree programme, its profile. The decision also encompasses the field of education of which the degree programme is a part, and in case of a combined degree programme, the information on the proportion of fields of education in curricula, the name of the faculty and the language of instruction.

(3) If the decision to grant internal accreditation under paragraph 1 (c) is the made, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board may impose preventive measures.

(4) The decision to grant internal accreditation to a degree programme shall be published.

(5) If the proposal of internal accreditation does not comply with the Act or VSE internal regulations, does not meet standards contained in the Rector´s Directive issued under Article 29 (8) or deficiencies have not been removed within the specified deadline under Article 29 (4), the VSE Internal Evaluation Board will not award internal accreditation to a degree programme and will inform the Dean concerned on the reasons for its decision.

Article 31
Internal Accreditation of Degree Programme Extension

(1) During the period of validity of a degree programme’s accreditation, a Faculty Scientific Board may apply for the extension of internal accreditation for a degree programme through a different form of study or a different language of instruction.

(2) Articles 29 and 3 apply mutatis mutandison decision-making of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board about proposals for internal accreditation of degree programme extension.

Article 32
Restriction and Removal of Internal Accreditation of a Degree Programme

(1) Should a Regular or Extraordinary Evaluation Report on Educational, Creative and Related Activities of the Faculty not be granted approval, or be approved with a reservation to the relevant degree programme, or should serious deficiencies be established during the extraordinary evaluation of a degree programme, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board may decide on restricting or removing internal accreditation of the given degree programme.

(2) Prior to the decision made under paragraph 1, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board must provide a reasonable deadline for the faculty to remove established deficiencies.

(3) New applicants may not enrol to the degree programme with restricted internal accreditation. The degree programme from which internal accreditation has been removed may not be implemented.

(4) Violation of the provisions of paragraph 3 by the Dean is considered to be grave damage to the interests of the VSE and establishes the grounds for the procedure under Section 28 (3) of the Act.

(5) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may cancel the restriction of the internal accreditation of a degree programme. Constituent elements of such cancellation are provided in the Rector´s Directive.

Article 33
Expiration of Internal Accreditation of a Degree Programme

Internal accreditation of a degree programme expires by:

  1. the removal of internal accreditation under Article 32 (1);
  2. the expiration of the period for which internal accreditation was awarded; or
  3. the delivery of the faculty’s announcement of cancellation of the degree programme to the VSE Internal Evaluation Board; such announcement is provided by the Scientific Board of the Faculty concerned and the Academic Senate of  the same faculty expresses its opinion on it.

Article 34
Intention to Submit an Application for Accreditation or Extension of a Degree Programme, and /or Termination of a Degree Programme

(1) The provisions of this Article apply to a degree programme which is not part of a field of education for which the VSE possesses valid institutional accreditation.

(2) The intention to lodge an application for the accreditation of a degree programme to the National Accreditation Bureau for Higher Education Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”) is approved by the VSE Internal Evaluation Board upon the proposal of the Scientific Board of the Faculty concerned.

(3) Prior to approval of the proposal by the relevant Faculty Scientific Board, the Academic Senate of the Faculty concerned expresses its opinion.

(4) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board may interrupt its discussion on the proposal under paragraph 2 and return the proposal to the Scientific Board of the Faculty to be completed or for removal of deficiencies. In such case the reasonable deadline to complete the proposal or to remove its deficiencies is specified. At the request of the Dean, the time limit may be repeatedly extended.

(5) When assessing the proposal under paragraph 2, the VSE Internal Evaluation Board will consider whether the proposal complies with the Act, other legal provisions, VSE internal regulations and the standards specified in the Rector´s Directive issued pursuant to Article 29 (8).

(6) The VSE Internal Evaluation Board decides on the intention to lodge an application for the accreditation of a degree programme within 90 days of the date on which the application was submitted. The months of July and August and the interruption period under paragraph 4 are not counted against the given time limit.

(7) Paragraphs (2) to (6) apply mutatis mutandisto the intention to lodge an application for extension of a degree programme.

(8) A degree programme expires by:

  1. the removal of accreditation;
  2. the expiration of the period for which the accreditation was awarded; or
  3. the announcement of the cancellation of the degree programme delivered to the Bureau. The VSE Internal Evaluation Board adopts a decision on cancellation of a degree programme upon the proposal of the Faculty Scientific Board concerned; the Academic Senate of the same Faculty expresses its opinion on it.

Article 35
Examination of the Decisions Adopted by the VSE

Internal Evaluation Board

(1) An applicant under Article 39 (1) may, no later than 30 days after the decision is adopted by the VSE Internal Evaluation Board in matters defined in Articles 29 to 34, request the Rector to examine such decision whilst stating the reasons for such examination.

(2) The Rector assesses the compliance of the challenged decision adopted by the VSE Internal Evaluation Board with the Act, other legal provisions, VSE internal regulations and the standards specified in the Rector´s Directive issued pursuant to Article 29 (8) and then either confirms the challenged decision or returns it to the VSE Internal Evaluation Board to be assessed again. If the Rector confirms the decision adopted by the VSE Internal Evaluation Board, the decision is considered to be final and conclusive.

(3) Prior to his or her decision taken under paragraph 2, the Rector may require the opinion of the VSE Scientific Board.

Part Four
The Rules of Procedure of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board

Article 36
General Provisions

(1) The Chair of the VSE Internal Evaluation Board (hereinafter the “Board”)  manages its activities, presides over its meetings and represents it in external affairs.

(2) The Deputy-chair of the Board acts for the Chair in the scope defined by the Chair.

(3) Should neither the Chair nor the Deputy-Chair be able to participate in the meeting, the meeting is to be chaired by the member of the Board designated by the Chair or by the Deputy-Chair.

(4) Meetings of the Board and its working groups under Article 37 are not public unless the Board or a working group resolves otherwise. Members of the Board, consultants under Article 38 and invited guests are obliged to duly respect confidentiality in relation to matters in which they participate in discussing, or within activities of the Board or its working groups.

(5) The Secretary of the Board, appointed and recalled by the Board, is responsible for administrative and substantive matters. The Secretary participates in Board meetings, takes minutes, records minutes of the Board and its working groups under Article 37, and maintains the list of consultants. If the Secretary is not present, the minutes are taken by the person authorised by the Chair of the Board.

Article 37
Working Groups of the Board

(1) The Board establishes and dissolves permanent or temporary working groups composed of members of the Board and consultants specified in Article 38 and appoints and dismisses their Chairs and other members.

(2) The Board may, under paragraph 1, establish a working group of at least five-members for the field of education where the VSE possesses institutional accreditation or for which the VSE is planning to apply for institutional accreditation.

(3) Meetings of the working group are called and presided over by the Chair of the working group; in duly justified cases the Chair of the working group may authorise any other member of the working group as their substitute.

(4) Resolutions of working groups are adopted, as a rule, at working group meetings by the majority of members present. A working group has a quorum if the majority of its members are present.

(5) In justified cases, the Chair of the working group may decide on voting outside the Board meeting (hereinafter referred to as “voting in writing”); for such voting the provisions of Article 41 apply accordingly.

(6) Article 36 (4) applies to the activities of members of a working group mutatis mutandis.

(7) The Chair of a working group may invite a guest to participate in the meeting of the working group.

Article 38
Consultants of the Board

(1) In order to ensure its activities, the Board may appoint and dismiss consultants involved in a certain field of education. The board may also dismiss a consultant at his or her request.

(2) Upon the proposal of bodies or persons laid down in Article 3 (3) (a) to (p) or upon the proposal of a member of the Board, a consultant may be a VSE employee, an employee of any higher education institution or public research institution, a foremost practitioner or a VSE student.

(3) A consultant is appointed for the period until the end of office of the members of the Board defined in Article 10 (6) of the Statute of the University of Economic. A consultant appointed from among VSE students ceases to be a consultant on the day following the last day of his or her studies.

(4) The list of consultants along with the field of education in which they are involved under paragraph 1 shall be published.

Article 39
Submission of Documents for Meetings of the Board

(1) A proposal for a meeting of the Board may be submitted by a member of the board, or a person laid down in Article 3 (3), or the Board of Directors of the VSE. The provisions of Part Three of this internal regulation are not prejudiced.

(2) A proposal for a meeting of the Board must contain a description of the matter which should be discussed and, as a rule, a draft resolution of the Board, and if necessary also all supporting documents needed.

(3) The proposal for a meeting of the Board is submitted electronically by sending it to the Secretary of the Board.

(4) The Secretary of the Board, without any undue delay, shall make the proposal submitted under paragraph 3 available to all members of the Board.

Article 40
Principles of a Board Meeting

(1) Board meetings are held at least four times during an academic year.

(2) The Chair of the Board calls a meeting if the Act and/or this internal regulation stipules so or if a meeting is required by at least one third of the Board’s members.

(3) The Chair of the Board is obliged to send an invitation for the Board meeting, including the draft agenda of the meeting, at least 14 days before the date of the Board meeting; in duly justified cases this time limit may be shortened to 7 days. The Board adopts a resolution on the agenda of each meeting.

(4) The minutes of a Board meeting include the adopted resolution and decisions about which votes were cast, while the text must follow the proposals given word for word; the results of voting must be stated (the number of votes cast for and against, and abstentions). The Secretary of the Board or the person taking minutes must send, without undue delay, the minutes electronically to all members of the Board who may, within 3 calendar days, send any comments to the Chair of the Board. The Chair of the Board, along with the Secretary of the Board, deals with the comments and provides information on the outcome to the members of the Board who sent those comments. The final version of the minutes taken from a meeting of the Board are published within 7 calendar days of the date on which the minutes were sent off.

Article 41
Provisions on Voting

(1) The Board has a quorum if the majority of all members of the Board are present at the meeting, with the exception of meetings dealing with affairs under Article 10 (7) of the Statute of the VSE where the quorum exists if there are two thirds of the members of the Board present.

(2) Unless the Board decides otherwise, votes are cast publicly.  The proposal to vote secretly is decided publicly; voting in writing under paragraph 7is public.

(3) Voting is taken in the following sequence: for, against, abstentions.

(4) Proposals are voted on in the order in which they were submitted with the exception of proposals for secret voting under paragraph 2, which is given priority.

(5) Unless the Act or the Rules stipulate otherwise, the proposal is approved if the majority of the present members of the Board vote for it.

(6) A proposal in the matter under Article 10 (7) of the Statute of the VSE is approved if the majority of the present members of the Board vote for it.

(7) In duly justified cases the Chair of the Board may decide on voting in writing. This method of voting cannot be used for proposals which are laid down in Article 10 (7) of the Statute of the VSE and in Part Three of this internal regulation. Voting in writing is carried out electronically upon the following conditions:

  1. The Chair of the Board sends to all members of the Board the draft resolution concerning the given matter, including relevant supporting documents, and informs them of the deadline for their response, which must be at least three working days from the date on which the proposal was sent.
  2. Individual members of the Board send their responses (“for the proposal”, “against the proposal” or “abstention”) within the specified deadline to the two members of the Board designated by the Chair and to the Secretary of the Board. The vote is valid if it is sent to all three persons specified herein.
  3. The resolution is approved if the majority of all voting members cast their vote for and if the majority of all members of the Board participated in voting.
  4. The Chair of the Board is obliged to inform about the result of voting in writing at the following meeting of the Board, otherwise all members of the Board must be informed electronically.
  5. The Secretary of the Board or the person designated by the Chair of the Board takes minutes about voting in writing.

Part Five
Final Provisions

Article 42
Final provisions

(1) This internal regulation was approved pursuant to Section 9 (1) (b) of the Act by the Academic Senate of the VSE on 19 June 2017.

(2) This internal regulation shall come into force on the date of registration by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and shall come into effect on 1 September 2017.

 

prof. Ing. Petr Berka, CSc., m.p.
Chair of the AS VSE Prague

prof. Ing. Hana Machková, CSc., m.p.
Rector of the VSE Prague