This chapter offers an analysis of Lithuania’s regulatory framework and external quality assurance system for higher education and provides recommendations on how these can be enhanced to strengthen the quality and labour-market relevance of teaching and learning in Lithuanian higher education.
Ensuring Quality Vocational and Higher Education in Lithuania
Abstract
This section analyses Lithuania’s regulatory framework and external quality assurance (QA) system for higher education, and how these support or hinder the quality and labour-market relevance of teaching and learning in Lithuanian higher education.
3.1.1. Regulation of the design and delivery of study programmes in higher education
The section examines how the design and delivery of study programmes in Lithuanian higher education is regulated. It first offers an overview of the legal frameworks to which academic staff must adhere when designing study programmes and then examines the different limitations these regulations impose on higher education institutions (HEIs) and teaching staff in innovating the structure and content of study programmes, their delivery format, and the teaching, learning and assessment practices used.
The design and delivery of study programmes in Lithuanian higher education is strictly regulated through multiple legal texts
The quality of teaching and learning in Lithuanian higher education is regulated through multiple legal texts and quality frameworks. The overarching regulatory framework for higher education is the “Higher Education and Research Act” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]), which includes stipulations on the number and type of providers that are allowed to offer higher education and the types of programmes different providers can offer (see Section 2.2 for a more detailed discussion of this). It also includes broader requirements and restrictions on study formats and specifies qualification requirements for teaching staff.
Based on the Higher Education and Research Act, the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC) has co-ordinated the development of three more detailed quality frameworks to guide the design and delivery of study programmes by Lithuanian HEIs. The first, the “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]), applies to all programmes at level 5-7 in the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). The second framework comprises 63 discipline-specific study-field descriptors, which include more specific guidelines applicable to bachelor’s and master’s programmes in relevant disciplines (SKVC, 2025[3]). Short-cycle programmes delivered by colleges must adhere to the relevant professional standards developed by the Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC) (KPMPC, 2025[4]). Finally, for each of the four study cycles in higher education (i.e. short-cycle, bachelor, master and doctoral), Lithuania has developed study cycle descriptors (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[5]). These describe five sets of transversal competencies which all students, regardless of the discipline they study, should acquire upon graduation.
While these different frameworks were developed in co-operation with academic experts, labour-market and student representatives, they each had to be approved by the Minister of Education, Science and Sports in the form of an Executive Order. As such, these frameworks constitute legally binding requirements with which HEIs must comply when designing their study programmes. Based on these external requirements, each HEI develops its own internal regulations for the design and delivery of study programmes (e.g. the requirements developed by VILNIUS TECH (2018[6]) or Utena College (2021[7])). Together, all these frameworks create a strict regulatory environment for academic staff in Lithuania to work in.
This is confirmed in the European University Association’s (EUA) latest Academic Autonomy Scorecard, which offers a comparative analysis of university autonomy in 35 higher education systems (EUA, 2023[8]). Lithuanian universities’ autonomy over academic affairs is among the lowest in Europe, at 51%.1 Academic autonomy is calculated based on six indicators, including institutions’ capacity to launch and terminate programmes, or determine the content of study programmes. Almost all higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team confirmed that the wide range of regulatory requirements in Lithuania make it challenging for academic staff wanting to innovate or experiment with new forms of teaching and learning. One higher education administrator described the situation as follows: “there is a is a culture of over-regulation in Lithuanian higher education [...] every single step is regulated for everyone, and this is also reflected in the culture of institutions”. Finally, Lithuania’s State Progress Strategy for “Lithuania 2050” also notes the importance of developing a more “favourable legal framework for experimenting with teaching methods at educational institutions and for testing and applying proven practices at a broader scale” (Office of the Committee for the Future of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 2024, pp. 47-8[9]).
Universities have more flexibility when it comes to the design and delivery of doctoral provision (ISCED 8), as these are subject regulations developed by individual HEIs or, in the case of joint doctorates, regulations agreed between multiple institutions. To ensure quality across doctoral programmes, the ŠMSM has adopted an overarching regulatory framework that specifies the areas that HEIs should cover in their own internal doctoral regulations – separate frameworks exist for arts and science doctorates (Republic of Lithuania, 2020[10]).
While university stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team mentioned that they highly valued this level of academic freedom at doctoral level, some felt that some additional guidance may be needed to ensure that doctoral students receive sufficient academic support and opportunities for transversal competence development. Many European systems are “moving away from a highly individualised model of delivery based on the personal master-apprentice relation between supervisor and supervisee [... and] integrate doctoral candidates in a research environment beyond the activities of their supervisor” (EUA, 2013, p. 14[11]). While outside of the scope of this project, it will be important for Lithuania to align its approach to the regulation and quality assurance of doctoral provision more closely with that of other advanced OECD and EU education and training systems. This may entail a more systematic introduction of doctoral programmes, which are subject to external quality assurance.
HEIs have limited flexibility to innovate with the structure and content of study programmes, which constrains their ability to adapt provision the needs of the labour market and society
Lithuania’s regulatory frameworks limit the ability of institutions and academics to modify the structure and content of study programmes. In consultations with the OECD team, several higher education stakeholders pointed to the “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” and the study-field descriptors in particular as the two frameworks that were limiting their flexibility to innovate with the structure and content of study programmes.
General requirements on the structure and content of study programmes prioritise the development of disciplinary content knowledge
The “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” specifies the minimum number of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits that institutions should allocate to disciplinary content knowledge, practical training and the final thesis in study programmes. Higher education stakeholders argued that this is supposed to ensure that study programmes are not too theoretical and offer time to students to develop their research competencies (through a final thesis) and practical skills (through work placements).
However, in three-year bachelor’s programmes, roughly two-thirds of the programme must be devoted to modules that focus on the development of students’ disciplinary content knowledge. In master’s programmes, this figure is roughly the same (see Table 3.1). Several higher education students interviewed by the OECD team confirmed that many instructors adopt highly theoretical and “frontal” teaching methods, with little student interaction and engagement, and that there is insufficient focus on transversal competency development.
Legal requirements on the design and structure of higher education programmes in Lithuanian higher education
Notes: 1) Remaining credits refers to: “studies prescribed by the university [or college] or chosen by the student (for studies of the study field and/or research work (artistic work), additional internship, modules (subjects) in another study field, minor field studies, digital competence, development of other general competences, etc.)” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]); 2) For master’s programmes in the arts, the final thesis consists of the creation of an artwork and research paper about the artwork; 3) Additional requirements: “A higher education institution must provide students of short-cycle, first cycle and integrated study programmes with the opportunity to acquire knowledge of at least one foreign language (a widely used official language of the European Union - English, French, German) and the ability to communicate using subject-related vocabulary with specialist audiences” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]).
Sources: Republic of Lithuania (2016[2]), Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies, Last amended on 7 July 2023 No V-953, www.skvc.lt/default/en/lawacts (accessed on 30 October 2023); Republic of Lithuania (2020[10]), Dėl Meno doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Arts regulations], https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/c7a7c152f2f811e6be918a531b2126ab?jfwid=f4nne5l3d (accessed on 17 January 2025); Republic of Lithuania (2020[10]), Dėl Mokslo doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Science regulations], https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/71ae1e80993e11eaa51db668f0092944/asr (accessed on 17 January 2025).
HEIs also reported that the detailed specifications on the number and type of modules to be covered in curricula, included in the study-field descriptors (see below), limit institutions’ capacity to develop “unique” study programmes. This means that Lithuania has a rather homogenous higher education offer, with institutions having limited flexibility to integrate new or innovative course content into their curricula or differentiate programmes from those offered in other institutions. For example, in three-year professional bachelor’s programmes, programme developers can only freely choose the focus of 21 out of 180 ECTS credits, which is equivalent to roughly 10% of the whole programme. In master’s programmes, this share increases to roughly 15% for 90-credit programmes and 37% for 240-credit programmes.
The review process for study-field descriptors is not sufficiently flexible to rapidly respond to changes in the labour market and society
As noted, for bachelor’s and master’s programmes, the general requirements are supplemented with 63 study-field descriptors (SKVC, 2025[3]); and short-cycle programmes must comply with the KPMPC professional standards (KPMPC, 2025[4]). Each study-field descriptor offers discipline-specific guidelines for programme design and delivery covering five areas: general provisions; content and scope of the programme; general and specific learning outcomes (by cycle); teaching, learning and assessment practices; and the human and material resources for programme delivery. In consultations with the OECD team, higher education stakeholders noted five major challenges with the study-field descriptors.
A first challenge is that the descriptors do not sufficiently reflect the needs of the labour market and society. While each descriptor was notionally developed with input from student and labour-market representatives, several stakeholders reported that SKVC faced challenges in involving external actors meaningfully in the development of some descriptors. In addition, there is no legal provision requiring SKVC to periodically review or update the study-field descriptors. Several higher education stakeholders and experts interviewed by the OECD team noted this as a key barrier to ensuring that the descriptors adequately reflect the latest developments in research, the labour market and society. Despite the lack of a legal requirement, SKVC has updated all its descriptors at least once since they were first introduced in 2015.
While the descriptors were seen as useful to familiarise HEIs with the learning outcomes approach, HEIs now feel that the descriptors have “served their purpose” and that a more agile skills intelligence tool would be better suited to inform HEIs on new and emerging competencies. Moreover, SKVC staff report that the process of updating the study-field descriptors is a labour-intensive process, and that the agency does not have the capacity to increase the speed with which the descriptors are being updated at present. Based on information provided by SKVC to the OECD team, it appears that study-field descriptors are updated on average every five to seven years. Considering rapid developments in fields such as low-carbon technologies or generative Artificial Intelligence, it is crucial that SKVC finds alternative ways of identifying skills needs and informing curriculum development in higher education.
A second challenge relates to the way in which the higher education sector itself uses the descriptors. On paper, the study field descriptors serve as guidance for the sector, which means that HEIs have flexibility in applying the requirements.2 In practice, however, the academic culture in Lithuania leads HEIs to follow the descriptors in a rather prescriptive way. One higher education administrator said that “even if they [i.e. the descriptors] are formulated as ‘recommendations’, they are actually followed as ‘regulations’ by institutions”. Some stakeholders argued that the descriptors are “extremely detailed and precise” and that they instil a culture of “micro-management of teaching and learning”. One reason for this might be the way in which the descriptors are referred to in SKVC’s external evaluation framework for study fields. Indicator 1.2 of the framework asks experts to assess HEIs’ compliance with the study-field descriptors (see Table A.1, Annex B). As a result, many HEIs feel obliged to closely adhere to the descriptors to be re-accredited. For some disciplines, the requirements included in these descriptors are so detailed that closely sticking to them can hinder efforts to increase the relevance of programmes to the labour market.
A third challenge consists of the constraints the study-field descriptors impose on launching programmes in new and emerging study fields. When applying for initial accreditation, Lithuanian HEIs must do so by referring to one of the Ministry-approved study-field groups (SKVC, 2024[12]). To launch a programme in a new study field, HEIs first need to obtain special approval from SKVC. While this is a common procedure in many other OECD and EU systems, the length of the procedure discourages many HEIs from creating programmes in new fields. As a result, several HEIs mentioned that, instead of creating new programmes, they tend to adapt or modify existing programmes, which implicitly limits the higher education sector’s capacity and agility to respond to new and emerging professions, research fields or skills shortages. Some HEIs would welcome more freedom to launch new programmes to respond to demands from students and employers, so they can “take the risk” and “let the market decide” whether a programme is viable or not.
A fourth challenge relates to the development of multi-disciplinary study programmes. In Lithuania, such programmes are limited to a maximum of three study fields, and HEIs must demonstrate compliance with at least one of the descriptors as the “main discipline” and offer 120 credits in this field for bachelor’s programmes, and 60 credits for master’s programmes. The title of a multi-disciplinary programme should also correspond to the main discipline, which makes it difficult for HEIs to market it as a truly multi-disciplinary programme. One higher education stakeholder said that “theoretically the possibility to offer multi-disciplinary study programmes exists, but in reality the requirements for the structure of study programme do not allow this”. More flexibility and guidance are needed to develop quality and internationally competitive inter-disciplinary programmes, especially as there is growing demand from students and employers for such programmes. In 2022, SKVC submitted a proposal to ŠMSM to introduce inter-disciplinary studies in the general classification of study fields, accompanied by a short analysis of selected countries internationally. In 2024, discussions were also held on a new external QA model for inter-disciplinary programmes, but no decision had been made at the time of writing this report.
A final set of challenges relates to the development of joint study programmes. Prior to 2017, joint study programmes were subject to separate – and more flexible – regulation in Lithuania, and HEIs received EU Structural Funds to develop them. Several HEIs seized this opportunity to develop joint programmes. In 2016, there were 42 joint study programmes in Lithuania, 88% of which were developed jointly with foreign partners, primarily in the area of social sciences (67%) (AIKOS, 2024[13]). Since 2017, institutions have needed to follow the general requirements and study-field descriptors. This means that all joint study programmes require a full ex-ante assessment and approval by SKVC, and it is no longer possible for HEIs to simply request a new codification in the State Register of Study Programmes if an HEI has aligned the content of an existing and accredited study programme with that of a (foreign) partner institution. As a result of this, and the end of EU funding, the number of joint study programmes in Lithuania has started to decrease. In 2021, there were 37 joint study programmes in the country, 29 of which were master’s.
HEIs also face limitations in developing fully online and flexible study programmes
Alongside the strict regulation of the structure and content of programmes, a second set of limitations relates to the study formats in which higher education programmes can be offered in Lithuania. The “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” includes detailed requirements on the minimum number of student-teacher contact hours and credits students should take up to be registered as full-time or part-time students (i.e. study intensity), and requirements on the online, hybrid and in-person delivery of programmes (i.e. study mode) (see Table 3.2).
Legal requirements on the study format and study intensity of higher education programmes in Lithuania
Source: Republic of Lithuania (2016[2]), Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies, Last amended on 7 July 2023 No V-953, www.skvc.lt/default/en/lawacts (accessed on 30 October 2023).
Restrictions on the development of digital higher education limit institutions’ capacity to attract international students and adult learners
As a general rule, HEIs in Lithuania are only permitted to offer fully in-person or hybrid programmes. Fully online programmes are only allowed “in cases determined by the Minister of Education, Science and Sport” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]). Evidence from a 2022/23 OECD survey shows that Lithuania is the only OECD system where HEIs cannot offer fully online programmes (Broberg and Golden, 2023[14]).
Stakeholder interviews reveal that one of the main reasons for these limitations originated 10-15 years ago, when some universities started to illegally offer degrees which were not accredited by SKVC. There are broader concerns that fully online programmes could lead to the emergence of “diploma mills” in Lithuania. However, after the experience gained from transitioning to fully online education during the COVID-19 pandemic, HEIs see the need to expand their digital provision to increase the overall flexibility and attractiveness of higher education in Lithuania. Instead of limiting fully online delivery, they argue that HEIs should be given more freedom to decide in which study formats to offer their programmes, especially to be able to attract more international students and adult learners.
At the same time, a recent SKVC survey of Lithuanian HEIs, collecting their experiences with remote online education during the COVID-19 pandemic, shows that many HEIs face challenges in delivering quality digital education. In line with findings from international research (Staring et al., 2022[15]), the biggest challenge reported by Lithuanian instructors is the amount of time it takes them to develop a good quality online course. Several HEIs also reported challenges with moving internships and practical training online (39%), online assessment (22%) and growing digital divides (22%) (SKVC, 2020[16]). The freedom to choose in which study format to offer study programmes therefore needs to be accompanied by clear definitions, standards and guidelines on how to deliver good quality online and hybrid programmes. Currently, Lithuania does not clearly define online and hybrid programmes, and there are only five broad requirements which institutions need to meet when delivering online courses as part of hybrid study programmes (see Table 3.2). A starting point may be a set of recommendations and best practices developed by Kaunas University of Technology, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University and Vilnius University, with funding from the Research Council of Lithuania (KTU, VILNIUS TECH and VU, 2020[17]). Guidelines for the organisation of online learning were also developed by the Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures of Lithuania (Ozolinčiūtė, 2020[18]).
There are also limitations on part-time study, hindering the development of micro-credentials and other more flexible study programmes
Lithuanian HEIs also face limitations to offer shorter and more flexible study programmes. Legislation currently distinguishes between full-time and part-time study. Full-time students are enrolled for at least 45 ECTS per academic year, while “part-time students” are those enrolled for less than 45 credits per academic year (see Table 3.2). While, theoretically, it is possible for students to enrol for as little as one course and obtain a study certificate for this after successful completion (which might meet the international definition of a “micro-credential” (OECD, 2021[19])), in practice this is not yet an attractive study option for students. To obtain a qualification, students must complete the programme within 1.5 times the theoretical duration of the programme, which means that stacking credits accumulated over a longer period is not possible in Lithuania.
Guidelines on recommended teaching, learning and assessment methods in higher education have a limited impact on the enhancement of pedagogical practices
A final set of limitations relates to the teaching and assessment methods of teaching staff. While Article 53 of the Higher Education and Research Act guarantees the academic freedom of the entire academic community, including over teaching and assessment,3 the “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” state that teaching staff should choose their teaching, learning and assessment methods “in accordance with the descriptors of the study fields” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]). Parts 4 and 5 of the study-field descriptors include detailed guidelines on the material resources, pedagogical methods and assessment practices to be used by instructors.
Stakeholders argue that academics face challenges in following the often broadly formulated recommendations on teaching, learning and assessment in the study-field descriptors. For example, the descriptor for arts and design recommends HEIs use a mix of active learning, blended learning and traditional learning, without offering further details or concrete examples of what good practice in blended or active learning looks like. Likewise, the economics and Chemistry descriptors state that institutions should make reasonable adjustments to their infrastructure to support the inclusion of students with special educational needs, but once again without providing information on – or examples of – what such adjustments might be (SKVC, 2020[20]; SKVC, 2015[21]).
A second challenge mentioned by stakeholders is that the descriptors were developed in disciplinary silos. While it is important that recommended pedagogical approaches are fit for purpose and adapted to each discipline, this can entail the risk of teaching quality varying between different disciplines. For example, the recommendation to make reasonable adjustments for students with special educational needs in the economics and Chemistry descriptors is not included in the arts and design descriptor (SKVC, 2020[20]; SKVC, 2015[21]; SKVC, 2021[22]). Higher education stakeholders felt that it would be more useful for SKVC to adopt a thematic and transversal approach to the development of any future guidelines on teaching and learning in higher education.
3.1.2. External evaluation and quality assurance of higher education
This section examines Lithuania’s external quality assurance framework for higher education. It first offers a broad overview of the system, followed by a more detailed analysis of the standards, methods and procedures used by SKVC to evaluate and accredit higher education providers and programmes at ISCED levels 5-7, and how these support or hinder the quality enhancement and labour-market relevance of higher education provision in Lithuania.
SKVC’s procedures are grouped into four broad categories:
1. Procedures to regulate the market entry of new higher education providers and programmes.
2. Procedures for the periodic review of higher education institutions and programmes in operation.
3. Procedures to monitor and analyse study-field performance in higher education.
4. Other activities to support teaching and learning enhancement in higher education.
Lithuania has a well-established system of external quality assurance in higher education, with a desire to become more risk-based and focused on collaborative enhancement
Lithuania has a well-established system of external evaluation and quality assurance in higher education. For more than 30 years, SKVC has been supporting the higher education sector to build its capacity for institutional quality management, primarily by externally evaluating and accrediting HEIs and programmes, also acting as a platform for mutual learning and experience sharing. More specifically, Lithuania’s Higher Education and Research Act defines three functions for SKVC. The first is to carry out regular external evaluation of the quality of HEIs to “offer recommendations for improving their quality, develop the culture of quality assurance in higher education” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]). The second is to accredit HEIs and programmes by checking their “compliance with legal requirements”, based on the results of external evaluations (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]). External evaluation and accreditation therefore serve the double purpose of ensuring accountability (i.e. assessing compliance with regulatory requirements) and enhancement (i.e. offering recommendations to support improvement in teaching and learning). The third mission of SKVC consists of managing the recognition of upper-secondary and foreign higher education qualifications to “create favourable conditions for the free movement of persons” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]).
In line with international practice in many OECD countries, one of the key objectives of external quality assessment in Lithuania is to ensure that higher education providers themselves take responsibility for the quality management of their teaching and learning offerings, and for external QA to become as light-touch as possible. Article 40 of Lithuania’s Higher Education and Research Act states that a core principle of QA is for “higher education and research institutions [to be] responsible for the quality of research (artistic) activities, education and other activities” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]).
Over the years, SKVC’s procedures have therefore evolved to become more “hands-off” and to give more responsibility to institutions. From 2011, SKVC started institutional reviews of all HEIs’ activities based on the “European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education” (ESG) (E4 Group, 2015[23]). In 2019, programme-level evaluation (which had been in place since 1999) was replaced with study-field evaluation. And in October 2023, the Ministry set up an ad hoc working group tasked with developing new processes and tools for the external QA of higher education, to be rolled out in 2028. A key task of the working group is to develop a system that is more diversified, and balanced by enhancement-oriented and assurance-oriented procedures, with institutional and thematic review as the main evaluation procedures, stronger implementation support, and better use of indicators to monitor performance (see Box 3.1 for more details).
While conducting external evaluations and quality assessments can be considered to be the main activity of SKVC – as is the case of most other QA agencies across OECD and EU systems (OECD, 2025[24]) – SKVC has a desire to expand its collaborative enhancement work with the sector. In its Strategic Plan 2023-26, SKVC states that it intends to strengthen its follow-up activities with HEIs to support the implementation of evaluation recommendations, for example through training activities, peer learning events, or the collection and dissemination of inspiring practices of institutional quality management (SKVC, 2023[25]). Several higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team said that they would like to see their current, formal and assessment-oriented relationship with SKVC evolve towards one based on co-operation and support for teaching and learning enhancement.
In October 2023, the ŠMSM set up a working group (WG) tasked with the development of proposals for a new external quality framework for higher education in Lithuania. The WG includes representatives from the Ministry, HEIs, students and SKVC. Initial proposals by the WG include the following:
Adoption of cyclical institutional review as the main procedure for external quality assurance, with ex-ante and ex-post programme assessment only required for non-accredited institutions, selected regulated professions and new study fields.
Supplementing institutional review with the ongoing monitoring of student complaints and key performance indicators in between formal review cycles to identify institutions and programmes at risk of poor quality, and where targeted reviews may need to be initiated.
Increasing the number of thematic reviews and benchmarking to support policy development at both system and institutional level.
Strengthening follow-up and implementation support for individual institutions, especially those institutions with poor outcomes in institutional evaluation. Beyond a requirement for HEIs to submit a “substantive changes report” following external evaluations, there are not yet any further plans on how SKVC plans to support the implementation of recommendations and teaching and learning enhancement more broadly.
Note: Based on information provided to the OECD team by the Working Group on SKVC Methodologies for External Quality Assurance.
The ex-ante accreditation of new higher education providers and programmes insufficiently reflects labour-market demand, and could be simplified for well-performing institutions
SKVC has two sets of procedures to regulate the market entry of new higher education provision. The first are provisions for the establishment of a new higher education provider. These require applicants to submit documents to SKVC for evaluation and to undergo a site visit of the institution’s premises by an SKVC-coordinated expert panel, covering six standards: 1) infrastructure; 2) financial resource allocation and plans; 3) strategic action plan; 4) human resources; 5) programme development strategy; and 6) the proposed new study programmes. Institutions’ initial operating license is valid for two years, after which they need to undergo a full institutional review by SKVC to obtain accreditation. At this stage, universities need to demonstrate that they have started offering at least three programmes; for colleges this is at least two programmes (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]).
The second are provisions to launch a new study programme. In study fields where HEIs have already been offering accredited programmes for at least seven years, HEIs can go through a simplified procedure and simply register their new study programme with SKVC. For all other programmes, a full external evaluation is required covering seven assessment areas: 1) study aims, outcomes and curriculum; 2) education and research/art links (applicable to bachelor’s and master’s programmes only); 3) student admission and support; 4) studying, student performance and graduate employment; 5) teaching staff; 6) facilities and learning resources; and 7) study management, quality and publicity. For new study-programme proposals where shortcomings are identified, HEIs need to submit a follow-up report to SKVC within 1.5 years of initial accreditation. Interviews with SKVC staff reveal that this is currently the case for roughly 40% of all new study programme proposals – mostly programmes submitted by colleges.
The simplified ex-ante programme accreditation process is a key enabler for programme innovation in higher education, and could be expanded for well-performing HEIs
Stakeholders explained to the OECD that the simplified accreditation procedure for new programmes in fields where institutions have well-established accredited programmes has acted as a key enabler for programme innovation and experimentation in Lithuanian higher education, as it has reduced the administrative burden for both HEIs and SKVC staff to launch a new programme. By contrast, the procedure for full programme evaluation is reported to be a burdensome administrative process, which, in some exceptional cases, can take up to one year to complete. Several stakeholders noted how the multitude of internal checks and procedures to be completed by SKVC, several of which were referred to by one interviewee as having “nothing to do with assessment”,4 lengthen the procedure.
Several stakeholders advocated an expansion of the simplified accreditation process for well-performing HEIs. The “reward” of being allowed to launch new programmes through a simplified procedure could act as a powerful incentive for institutions to invest in their institutional quality assurance systems and research capacity (OECD, 2023[26]) and free up SKVC’s capacity to focus its efforts on assessing and supporting teaching and learning enhancement in HEIs and programmes with quality concerns. However, as discussed in Section 5.1, the internal quality management systems of many HEIs in Lithuania are still developing. Any expansion of the freedom for Lithuanian HEIs to independently launch new study programmes without having to undergo an external review by SKVC would therefore require widely agreed quality standards and to be accompanied by a clear procedure on how to obtain such self-accrediting rights.
Lithuania does not have a strong mechanism to determine student demand for, and the labour-market relevance of, new study programmes in higher education
While most HEIs would like to have more autonomy to independently launch new study programmes, they would also welcome more detailed advice and guidance on how to determine and demonstrate labour-market relevance and student demand for new programmes. Since there is such a high level of competition for students both between and within individual HEIs in Lithuania (see Section 6.1), there is a substantial risk of HEIs investing resources into new programmes which may never admit any students. Several stakeholders felt that SKVC – or another national body – could play a stronger role in deterring HEIs from offering new study programmes in areas with saturated student or labour-market demand.
SKVC’s external evaluation framework for new study programmes currently has only one indicator which explicitly evaluates “the conformity of the aims and outcomes of the field and cycle study programmes to the needs of the society and/or the labour market” (Indicator 1.1.1). However, the indicator only examines how the proposed new programme compares to “the number of programmes implemented in the HEI per field” (see Table A.1, Annex B). HEIs themselves are responsible for analysing how their new programme compares to the existing programme offer in Lithuania and internationally. Some interviewees mentioned that since there is no specific criterion comparing new programme proposals to the national and international programme offering, HEIs tend to “package and resell” their existing programmes rather than profoundly reviewing them or creating new ones that respond to a specific need in the labour market or society.
There is also a limited focus on labour market alignment or co-operation in the other indicators of the evaluation framework (see Table 3.3). For example, assessment area 3 (student admission and support) only asks institutions to describe their student admission and selection criteria (Indicator 3.1.1), but not the audience specifically targeted by the programme or how these will be attracted. Assessment area 5 (teaching staff) only examines the compliance of the proposed academic teaching staff with the legal qualification and competence requirements, but not whether staff have practical experience in the field or if or how employers will be involved in the delivery of the programme.
* Links between education and research (art) is not a mandatory assessment area for short-cycle study programmes.
Note: For the full ex-ante programme evaluation framework in higher education, see Table A.1, Annex B.
Source: Adapted from SKVC (2019[27]), Methodology for Evaluation of New Study Programmes, www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Teise/Kokybes%20agentura/Methodology%20for%20New%20study%20Programmes.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
By contrast, the evaluation framework places a strong emphasis on HEIs’ research or artistic activities. Under assessment area 2, institutions are required to provide information on the amount and type of (applied) research and/or artistic activities they carry out in study fields related to the programme, and how this will be embedded in the curriculum. Experts are also required to assess HEIs’ research or artistic capacity based on the results of their annual research and development (R&D) evaluations from the last three years, and their latest comparative expert assessment (CEA), both carried out by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMT). From 2027, HEIs will need to obtain a minimum score of 3 (i.e. “good”) in their CEA to be allowed to continue offering master’s programmes in related study fields; for bachelor’s programmes this will be 2 (i.e. “satisfactory”). While this has the potential to strengthen research-based instruction in Lithuanian higher education, it also risks leading to “academic drift” in professionally-oriented institutions (OECD, 2020[28]).
There is limited involvement of labour market representatives and international experts in the ex-ante programme accreditation process
The expert panel carrying out the full evaluation of new study programme proposals typically consists of “two experts with the respective competence in the study field of the evaluated programme and one student representative” (SKVC, 2024[29]). Labour-market representatives are included in some but not all expert panels, and this was noted by several higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team as a key barrier to ensuring that new study programmes respond to the needs of the labour market and society. A challenge for SKVC is finding labour-market experts who are willing to collaborate in the external evaluation of new study programme proposals. In addition to this, most evaluations of new study programme proposals are carried out only by Lithuanian experts, and do not involve international experts. Given the small size of Lithuania as a country, several stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team argued that it was crucial to involve international experts systematically in every ex-ante review to guarantee the independence of the process.
Duplication across institutional and study-field evaluations creates challenges for HEIs and SKVC staff, and standards do not reflect the diversity of institutional missions and profiles
The periodic review of higher education in Lithuania includes both institutional and study-field evaluation. As noted, institutional evaluation was first introduced in 2011 and is carried out every seven years. To date, all HEIs in Lithuania have gone through two external reviews by SKVC: in 2011-17, and in 2020-25. In consultations with the OECD team, stakeholders explained that one of the main reasons for introducing institutional evaluation was to achieve greater impact, as programme-level review (which had been in place since 1999) only had a limited impact on developing institutional quality cultures. Colleges had already been evaluated between 2004 and 2009, four years after they were reformed from post-secondary schools to tertiary colleges (SKVC, 2016[30]). The introduction of an external review process at institution level against a set of national standards was therefore met with much more resistance from universities than colleges, as colleges had more of a tradition than universities of being subject to external review.
The evolution from an institutional quality review process only applicable to colleges to a system covering all HEIs was accompanied by a reduction in the number of assessment areas from nine to four. They are: 1) management; 2) quality assurance; 3) education and research/art links; and 4) impact on regional and national development. Like in most other OECD and EU jurisdictions, the institutional review procedure in Lithuania includes four main steps: 1) the preparation of a self-evaluation report by the HEI; 2) a site visit to the HEI’s premises by an external review panel; 3) the preparation of an external review report by the expert panel, including recommendations for improvement; and 4) follow-up in the form of HEIs submitting reports to SKVC in which they explain how they are addressing the expert panel’s recommendations.
Study-field evaluation was first introduced in 2019, replacing quality assessments at individual study-programme level, and is also carried out every seven years by SKVC. The procedure includes the same four steps as those used for institutional review and covers seven standards: 1) study aims, outcomes and curriculum; 2) education and research/art links (applicable to bachelor’s and master’s programmes only); 3) student admission and support; 4) studying, student performance and graduate employment; 5) teaching staff; 6) facilities and learning resources; and 7) study management, quality and publicity.
One of the main reasons for introducing study-field evaluation was to reduce the administrative burden for HEIs and SKVC, as in the past one expert panel would review different study programmes in the same field and be required to write multiple reports containing repetition. It was also hoped that the new procedure would help HEIs to gain a more comprehensive view on the quality of their programmes, and “encourage higher education institutions to cluster their academic and administrative staff and resources, improve management, abandon weak programmes, highlight synergies between different programmes in the same direction and emphasise their uniqueness” (SKVC, 2020, p. 7[31]).
While external evaluation is seen as beneficial, duplication across multiple evaluation procedures have led to an “evaluation fatigue” among HEIs and SKVC staff
Almost all higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team recognised the benefits of self-assessment and external review by (international) peers in institutional and study-field evaluation. This is confirmed by an SKVC survey among HEIs on the relevance and impact of the institutional reviews carried out between 2011 and 2015 (SKVC, 2016[32]). The survey found that 70% of universities and 90% of colleges “rather agreed” or “fully agreed” that self-evaluation was useful for institutional performance improvement. It also found that institutional review had a positive impact on performance improvement across all four assessment areas. Some HEIs found study-field evaluation to be more useful than institutional reviews, as they offer highly detailed discipline-specific recommendations which cannot be gained from the more high-level institutional reviews. Another key finding is that colleges tend to assess the impact of external reviews more positively than universities. Public HEIs were also generally more positive about the institutional reviews than private institutions (SKVC, 2016[32]).5
At the same time, almost all stakeholders noted that the procedures of study field and institutional review constitute a heavy administrative burden. Both procedures require HEIs and SKVC staff to prepare and check several annexes in addition to the self-assessment report6 and there is limited co-ordination between both procedures. As a result, HEIs are sometimes required to provide the same information multiple times to SKVC, albeit in different formats. All of this has contributed to an “evaluation fatigue” among HEIs and SKVC staff, with many HEIs approaching external review as an administrative reporting exercise to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements rather than an opportunity for critical self-reflection and peer learning.
To address some of these concerns, SKVC plans to adopt institutional evaluation as the main evaluation procedure and will only require ex-post programme assessment for non-accredited providers, new study fields, regulated professions and programmes in which quality concerns are observed (see Box 3.1). These plans were welcomed by almost all higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team and are in line with quality assurance trends observed in other OECD and EU jurisdictions (OECD, 2025[24]). In its “Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a European Quality Assurance and Recognition System in Higher Education”, the European Commission also makes a case for simplification and recommends EU member states to “shift towards an institutional approach to external quality assurance” (EC, 2024, p. 4[33]).
SKVC procedures narrowly focus on assessing compliance with input and process indicators, and are insufficiently differentiated to reflect the mission of different HEIs
An analysis of the standards and indicators used by SKVC for the external evaluation of institutions and study fields shows that there is a strong focus on assessing compliance with the legal requirements and the ESG. For example, Indicator 1.1.1 of the institutional evaluation framework asks experts to check the compliance of HEIs’ strategic action plan with the “legal acts regulating research and study activities and […] the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area” (see Table A.1, Annex B). Indicator 1.2 in the study-field evaluation framework assesses HEIs’ compliance with the aims, learning outcomes, curriculum design and modules (Indicator 1.2.1) and the recommended teaching, learning and assessment methods (Indicator 1.2.2) included in the study-field descriptors (see Table A.1, Annex B).
Almost all higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team questioned the relevance of asking international experts to assess HEIs’ compliance with national requirements. Instead, they saw the added value of external review in receiving an international perspective on the quality and labour-market relevance of their teaching and learning practices. Moreover, several stakeholders reported that many external review panels do not use the study-field descriptors as some of the requirements are too detailed, to make them a practical resource for experts and institutions to use and the descriptors have not been updated since they were first introduced in 2015. As such, they do not generally reflect the latest developments in teaching and learning, research, or the labour market.
The indicators also reflect only a limited focus on assessing the outputs and labour-market relevance of higher education. In the institutional evaluation framework, only one of all 34 indicators requests information on the outputs of institutions, i.e. Indicator 3.1.2: sufficiency of institutions’ research (artistic) activities (see Table 3.4). All other indicators focus on the required inputs and processes for teaching and learning, such as the qualifications of staff (Indicator 1.4.3), professional development opportunities for staff (Indicators 1.4.4 and 1.4.5), procedures for academic integrity (Indicator 2.1.5), or procedures to monitor and analyse lifelong learning needs (Indicator 4.2.1). Moreover, only six indicators examine how institutions seek to improve the labour-market relevance of provision. The labour-market relevance of study programmes is assessed as part of two indicators in the study-field evaluation framework: Indicator 1.1 (“Field studies are based on the needs of the country’s economy and the needs of the society”) and indicator 4.2.2 (“Evaluation of employability of graduates and graduate career tracking in the study field”).
* The links between education and research (art) is not a mandatory assessment area for short-cycle study programmes.
Note: For the full institutional and study-field evaluation frameworks, see Table A.1 and Table A.4, Annex B.
Source: Adapted from SKVC (2020[34]), Methodology for Conducting an Institutional Review in Higher Education, https://skvc.lrv.lt/en/quality-assurance/institutional-review/ (accessed on 28 April 2024) and SKVC (2019[35]), Methodology for Evaluation of Study Fields, www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Teise/Kokybes%20agentura/Methodology%20for%20Evaluation%20of%20Study%20Fields.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2024).
By contrast, the frameworks include a strong focus on assessing the links between education and research. In both the institutional and study field evaluation, the links between education and research (or art) it is one of seven assessment areas and, from 2028, having a sufficient level of R&D activity will become mandatory for HEIs to be able to continue offering bachelor’s and master’s programmes in related study fields. While most higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team recognised that teaching and learning in higher education should be informed by research, colleges felt that LMT’s evaluations of R&D activities do not sufficiently reflect the more applied nature of the research conducted by colleges.
Stakeholders reported several challenges with the assessment and follow-up procedures of institutional and study field evaluation
Based on evidence from the self-evaluation report and site visit, each assessment area is scored on a five-point grading scale by a panel of external experts, including academics, students and employers. The grading scale was introduced in 2020 to replace the previous positive/negative rating, which SKVC considered to be “rather rigid” (SKVC, 2016, p. 7[32]). At that time, SKVC also introduced follow-up measures to incentivise and support institutions with the implementation of performance improvement measures in response to the recommendations received from external experts (see Table 3.5).
A first key challenge with this approach highlighted by stakeholders relates to the fairness and consistency in assessment and the recommendations made by external experts. Some HEIs felt that they were being assessed “unfairly”, partially because they were not always assessed by experts with the same profile or background as the institution (for example, colleges being assessed by university experts, or vice-versa). Stakeholders also reported that, in some cases, the recommendations across different institutional and study-field evaluations contradicted each other, which made the implementation of improvement measures challenging.
To improve consistency and fairness in assessment, some interviewees recommended introducing a peer-learning or benchmarking approach in the next institutional review cycle. If assessments were based on a comparison of HEIs with similar missions, profiles or challenges, they argued that this might lead to fairer judgements by experts. This suggestion is in line with some developments observed in other OECD and EU jurisdictions, notably Finland and Norway, where the QA agencies have embedded peer-learning and benchmarking approaches in their institutional evaluations (see Recommendation 5, Section 3.2). Another suggestion was to ensure that the same expert panel evaluates multiple institutions, as is done for study-field evaluation. Finally, some stakeholders believed that clearer guidance, benchmarks and examples in the evaluation frameworks were needed, as several indicators only include very little information on the type of evidence or data HEIs need to provide, or how they will be weighted in the assessment.
For example, Indicators 1.2.3 and 1.4.2 of the institutional evaluation framework mention that HEIs should have “sufficient academic […] and non-academic staff to meet its operational objectives” and that stakeholders are involved in the management processes at “an adequate level” (see Table A.1, Annex B). However, no concrete figures or examples are provided to illustrate what an appropriate student-teacher ratio would be for different disciplines, or which stakeholders’ institutions should seek to involve in their procedures. Likewise, Indicators 2.1.3, 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the study field evaluation framework request that HEIs provide data on the number of students and staff involved in scientific and artistic activities and/or professional development as well as student-teacher ratios, but do not specify what constitutes “recommended” student-teacher ratios or scientific and artistic activity (see Table A.2, Annex B).
Notes: Accreditation Decision is abbreviated in this table as “AD”. The grading scale is as follows: 5 points – excellent: the area is rated exceptionally well in the national context and internationally; 4 points – very good: the area is rated very well in the national context and internationally, without any drawbacks; 3 points – good: the area is being developed systematically, without any major drawbacks; 2 points – satisfactory: the area meets the minimum requirements, and there are drawbacks that must be addressed; 1 point – unsatisfactory: the area does not meet the minimum requirements, there are fundamental drawbacks.
Source: Adapted from SKVC (2020[34]), Methodology for Conducting an Institutional Review in Higher Education, https://skvc.lrv.lt/en/quality-assurance/institutional-review/ (accessed on 28 April 2024) and SKVC (2019[35]), Methodology for Evaluation of Study Fields, www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Teise/Kokybes%20agentura/Methodology%20for%20Evaluation%20of%20Study%20Fields.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2024).
A second challenge relates to the five-point grading scale itself. Several stakeholders felt that grading hinders openness in institutions’ self-evaluation. Instead of being open and critical about areas that might need improvement, most HEIs try to demonstrate as much as possible how they comply with the standards in the external evaluation framework to receive a mark that is as high as possible. This defeats the purpose of external evaluation, which is meant to offer recommendations for enhancement, which can only happen if institutions are encouraged to be open about their challenges to SKVC and external evaluators.
A final challenge relates to SKVC’s follow-up and implementation support following external evaluations. In the current study-field and institutional evaluation procedure, all HEIs are required to submit an action plan to SKVC in which they describe their performance improvement measures in response to the external evaluation, within six months of receiving their accreditation decision. The lower the scores received, the greater the frequency of these reporting requirements (see Table 3.5). Several HEIs reported to the OECD team that preparing these follow-up reports did little to support teaching and learning enhancement. Several HEIs would welcome greater support and advice from SKVC and external experts to develop their internal quality management system, for example through peer-learning events, targeted consultations and more regular meeting with SKVC experts. However, SKVC currently does not have the resources to expand its enhancement work with HEIs.
The annual monitoring of study field performance offers a strong basis for a risk-based quality assurance system, but more relevant thresholds and indicators are needed
In 2021, SKVC adopted a more quantitative approach to monitoring the quality of teaching and learning in higher education by monitoring study field performance across seven key indicators: 1) time-to-completion rates; 2) graduate employment rates; 3) share of students participating in outgoing mobility; 4) number of enrolled students; 5) share of teaching staff participating in outgoing mobility; 6) drop-out rates; and 7) Matura examination results of enrolled students. This happened following a recommendation by the National Audit Office in Lithuania, which called for more objective and comparable data on the performance of Lithuanian HEIs (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2021[36]). SKVC calculates these indicators based on data collected from various registers7 and publishes them on an online platform, which is open to the public and allows for a comparison of institutional performance within the same study field, cycle and programme (SKVC, 2024[37]).
An upward or downward change of 30% in the indicators in at least three study fields will trigger SKVC to ask HEIs to explain the figures and how it plans to address shortcomings identified. If SKVC judges the HEI’s response or remedial actions to be insufficient, it may ask the ŠMSM for permission to launch an “extraordinary evaluation”, supplementing the legally required study field and institutional reviews. At the time of writing, no extraordinary evaluation has been conducted by SKVC.
The indicators used for annual study field monitoring need a stronger evidence base and should be supplemented with qualitative data, including from students
A major concern expressed by HEIs is that the indicators used for annual study field monitoring do not adequately reflect the reality within individual institutions and study programmes. One reason for this is that the indicators are based exclusively on data from national registers (see Table 3.6), which does not always correspond to the data held by HEIs. While HEIs recognise the importance of assessing performance against objective and comparable indicators, they underline the importance of improving Lithuania’s administrative data registers – especially the Education Management Information System (EMIS) – to ensure it contains correct information. Such improvements were also recommended by the National Audit Office (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2021[36]).
In addition to this, HEIs underlined the importance of supplementing administrative data with contextual information from HEIs to understand the reasons behind certain figures or trends, including from students. For example, an increase in the total number of enrolled students (Indicator 1), several of whom may have had poor Matura results and might therefore be less prepared to enter higher education (Indicator 2), may be one of the reasons why drop-out rates in a specific institution may have increased (Indicator 3).
Moreover, the “time-to-completion” indicator only looks at students’ predicted graduation date, but not at the reasons why students drop out, leading to difficulties in interpreting the data. The “internationalisation” indicator has been reported to focus too narrowly on physical mobility and the number of outgoing students and staff. HEIs engage in many other types of international co-operation, such as the development of joint study programmes with foreign HEIs, which increasingly involves online or hybrid formats. However, the indicator explicitly states that instructors engaging in online research with foreign institutions is not counted. The “graduate employment” indicator considers the number of graduates that have a job requiring a higher education degree twelve months after graduation and is linked to specific levels in the Lithuanian Classification of Occupations. However, the indicator does not capture students who move abroad, and stakeholders considered twelve months to be too short to assess employment outcomes.
Source: Based on Republic of Lithuania (2023[38]), Dėl Mokslo ir studijų institucijų studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimo, valstybės biudžeto skatinamojo finansavimo už studijų veiklos pasiekimus lėšų paskirstymo mokslo ir studijų institucijoms, duomenų, kurių reikia siekiant atlikti studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimus, teikimo ir mokslo ir studijų institucijų studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimo kriterijų svorio koeficientų nustatymo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo [Procedures, data and performance funding of HEI education outcomes monitoring], https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/86b1cbb087b611edbdcebd68a7a0df7e/asr (accessed on 16 February 2024) and Republic of Lithuania (2021[39]), On the Approval of the Procedures for the External Evaluation and Accreditation of Studies, Evaluation Areas and Indicators, www.skvc.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/355_23a7f3887e5f74f259c820ddd1e68dd3.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2024).
The annual monitoring of study-field performance is not yet integrated in Lithuania’s quality assurance framework for higher education
A final observation is that SKVC’s procedure for the annual monitoring of study-field performance appears to be operating entirely in parallel to the procedures for institutional and study-field evaluation. At present, SKVC primarily focuses on collecting and updating the data required for each of the seven performance indicators, and it has no independence to launch an extraordinary review or institutional support for at-risk institutions or programmes – SKVC needs the ŠMSM’s approval to launch an extraordinary evaluation. External experts also make limited use of the evidence included in the online portal to identify themes or at-risk programmes that might be focused on in greater detail during site visits or self-assessments, or to identify institutions or programmes with similar challenges that might be grouped together.
As discussed in more detail under Recommendation 4 (see Section 3.2), a key priority for Lithuania in the coming years is to develop a holistic risk assessment framework, building on the current procedure for study field monitoring, and to link the outcomes from this risk assessment exercise more clearly to the next cycle of institutional reviews.
SKVC is increasingly supporting sectoral enhancement, but has limited financial and human resources to do so
In addition to conducting external quality assessments and evaluations, SKVC has started to support teaching and learning enhancement through a wide range of other activities. In doing so, SKVC aligns with trends observed in other OECD and EU jurisdictions, where QA agencies with a mandate that is, by law, limited to conducting external quality assessment and accreditation “have started to offer additional quality services, moving beyond their core legal mission” (OECD, 2025, p. 11[24]). Such services include the organisation of peer-learning events or disseminating research on teaching and learning quality.
SKVC already offers a wide range of quality enhancement services, but the focus of these activities could be modified to increase their relevance for HEIs
At the time of writing, SKVC supports teaching and learning enhancement in higher education through four broad types of activity other than external evaluation and accreditation. First, the agency has collaborated closely with experts across the Lithuanian higher education sector, including representatives from students and employers, to develop detailed study field and study cycle descriptors, providing guidance to HEIs on how to design and deliver their study programmes (SKVC, 2025[3]; Republic of Lithuania, 2016[5]). While this discipline-specific approach to guiding the design and delivery of study programmes was beneficial to introduce HEIs to the learning outcomes approach, several stakeholders felt that this could be supplemented with guidance focusing on more specific, cross-cutting themes such as embedding research into education programmes, managing the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), the inclusion of international students, or how to deliver high-quality online or blended courses and micro-credentials.
SKVC also supports sectoral enhancement through the publication of thematic analyses of its institutional, study field and programme-level evaluations. So far, SKVC has published eight such reports (SKVC, 2024[40]). Examples are SKVC’s thematic analysis of the 2011-15 institutional evaluation cycle (SKVC, 2016[32]) and an evaluation of new study programme proposals in 2010-15 (SKVC, 2015[41]). While these thematic analyses are important to support the improvement of SKVC’s standards and methods, stakeholders reported that they are of limited added value to HEIs looking for inspiring practices of institutional QA from other institutions. The only exceptions are a short “Review of Excellence at the Level of Individual Subject Disciplines” (Bogdan, 2016[42]) or SKVC’s survey of HEIs’ experiences with delivering online education (SKVC, 2020[16]). Several HEIs interviewed by the OECD team would like SKVC to engage in more regular thematic analysis of key topics of concern for the higher education sector and to play a more active role in disseminating national and international best practice.
Another quality enhancement project, implemented in collaboration with the Lithuanian Student Union (LSS), is the development of a National Student Survey (NŠA) tool (SKVC, 2024[43]). However, as discussed in more detail in Section 6.1, the project was abandoned as too few institutions were using the tool.
Finally, SKVC regularly organises training events and workshops for HEIs, both online and in-person. While several of these events focus on SKVC’s external evaluation and accreditation processes,8 there is a trend of taking a more thematic approach, such as international peer-learning events on how to offer quality online education during the COVID-19 pandemic or innovation in higher education recognition. Almost all higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team mentioned that they highly valued the opportunities for peer learning created by such events and would like SKVC to increase its focus on such enhancement-oriented activities in the future.
SKVC has no explicit mission and limited resources to implement a wider sectoral enhancement programme
Both SKVC and HEIs would like to see their current, more formal and assessment-oriented, relationship evolve towards one based on co-operation and support for teaching and learning enhancement. However, as noted earlier in this chapter, SKVC currently has no explicit legal mission or resources for this. In this, SKVC differs from the Research Council of Lithuania (LMT), which does have an explicit legal mission and resources to support research excellence. In addition to conducting evaluations of HEIs’ R&D activities and doctoral education, LMT has access to dedicated resources to co-ordinate the implementation of competitive research funding programmes and organise capacity-building activities to support the wider development of research and doctoral education in Lithuania (see Table 3.7Table 3.7).
The differences between SKVC and LMT’s mission and resources may be an illustration of the historically greater value attached to research compared with teaching in higher education systems across OECD and EU countries (Fumasoli, Goastellec and Kehm, 2015[44]; OECD, 2024[45]). As discussed in more detail in chapter 5 of this report, whereas academic staff can access a wide range of funding and capacity-building programmes to develop their research competencies and engage in cross-sectoral co-operation, teaching and learning enhancement in Lithuania is primarily carried out by individual HEIs, supported through national guidelines developed by ŠMSM and recommendations from SKVC’s external evaluations.
Source: Based on Republic of Lithuania (2009[1]), Higher Education and Research Act, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/548a2a30ead611e59b76f36d7fa634f8 (accessed on 23 January 2024) and LMT (n.d.[46]), Teisės aktai [Legislation], https://lmt.lrv.lt/lt/teisine-informacija/teises-aktai/ (accessed on 4 March 2024).
If ŠMSM were to consider expanding SKVC’s legal mission with a more explicit mandate for enhancement, this would need to be backed by additional resources, especially given the agency’s current financial and human resource challenges. Table 3.8 shows that SKVC has been heavily reliant on EU Structural Funds to finance its activities. Since 2024, SKVC no longer receives EU funding and is now fully reliant on state funding. This led to a decline in the total operating budget of SKVC by one-third between 2023 and 2024. The instability of financial resources has had an impact on the stability of SKVC staff. Since 2019, around one-third of SKVC staff have left the organisation each year, creating reliance on a handful of long-term staff members. This poses a significant threat to the consistency, quality and the overall reputation and credibility of SKVC’s expertise and capacity to support quality enhancement for the sector.
Source: Data provided by the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC) to the OECD team.
This section offers recommendations and a roadmap with suggested action points for Lithuania to address some of the most important challenges identified in Section 3.1 above. The recommendations and associated roadmap were developed based on a review of international policies for quality assurance and enhancement across nine comparator jurisdictions for Lithuania in OECD (2025[24]) and OECD (2025[47]).
3.2.1. Remove regulatory barriers that may hinder programme innovation and alignment of provision of labour market and societal needs
To further develop HEIs’ capacity for quality management and promote better alignment with the labour market and societal needs, Lithuania will need to introduce revisions to the Higher Education and Research Act (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]), the general requirements for programme implementation (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]) and study field descriptors (SKVC, 2025[3]). Together, these frameworks should give HEIs and instructors sufficient guidance and flexibility to experiment with new and innovative study formats and content that meet the expectations of the current and future generations of learners. This includes both digitally-native secondary school graduates – who have lived through the COVID-19 pandemic – and adult learners, who expect more flexibility to decide on how, where, what and when to study.
Recommendation 1: Revise study format regulations and develop a national framework to support the development of digital higher education and micro-credentials
If Lithuania wishes to expand the diversity of study formats offered by HEIs, it will need to start by updating the study format definitions in the “Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies” (Republic of Lithuania, 2016[2]), to provide HEIs with a clear and common framework. As noted in Section 3.1, the descriptor defines and restricts “remote learning” to hybrid education. Fully online learning is not allowed, and the descriptor also does not consider the fact that there is – or soon will be – no longer any fully in-person education that is not supported in at least some measure by digital technology, such as a virtual learning environment (VLE) or learning management system (LMS), open educational resources (OER), or the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) by teaching staff and students. In the international literature, a distinction is made between three broad types of digital education (see Box 3.2).
A distinction between three broad types of digital education can be made, based on the location (online vs. in-person) and the extent to which digital technology is used (i.e. extensive use vs. limited use):
Blended education refers to a study mode where courses are intentionally designed to harness the capacities of digital technology, using it to enrich rather than substitute in person instruction. For example, a language or mathematics course delivered on campus using learning analytics to adapt problem sets to learner abilities. Importantly, most instruction takes place on campus.
Hybrid education refers to a study mode where instruction involves a mix of on campus and off-campus instruction. Learners have some flexibility regarding the location in which they complete their study. For example, learners might complete laboratory segments of an engineering course on campus, while obtaining lecture-based course segments through web streaming outside of the lecture theatre.
Online education refers to a study mode where instruction is delivered off-campus, either synchronously or asynchronously, or in combination. Students complete their course or programme of study at a distance, without the need for on campus instruction.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[26]), Ensuring Quality Digital Higher Education in Hungary, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en.
In line with international practice, a recommendation for Lithuania is to give HEIs full autonomy to decide on the study format in which they offer their courses. In eight of the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, HEIs do not face any restrictions to launching fully online, hybrid or blended study programmes. This is either because programme-level authorisation in general is not required (e.g. Austria, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Scotland), because the same standards for digital and in-person programmes are applied (e.g. Denmark and Ireland) or because no specific standards or procedures for digital education have been developed (e.g. the Netherlands). Only in Croatia separate or additional criteria exist for HEIs that wish to offer a hybrid or fully online programme (OECD, 2025[47]). If Lithuania does want to continue limiting fully online learning, it may consider doing so only for certain learner groups or study fields. Evidence suggests that students with weak academic backgrounds and other risk factors might struggle to complete fully online courses (Staring et al., 2022[15]). Also, not all courses and programmes, especially those with a higher proportion of practical components (e.g. medical education, or engineering) can be moved online as easily or at the same level of quality (Study International, 2020[48]). Several stakeholders in Lithuania – students included – agreed that it is important to maintain some limits on fully online studies.
A careful assessment by SKVC of HEIs’ capacity to offer online or hybrid programmes at a good level of quality may help to make such decisions. Such an assessment will need to be based on clear and widely shared quality standards for digital higher education. To develop such a framework, Lithuania can consider building on the guidelines for digital higher education developed by Kaunas University of Technology, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University and Vilnius University (KTU, VILNIUS TECH and VU, 2020[17]), or those developed by the Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures of Lithuania (Ozolinčiūtė, 2020[18]). A recent OECD mapping contains many other international quality frameworks for digital higher education which SKVC could consider drawing on (Staring et al., 2022[15]). Several of these were developed specifically for the European context. For example, the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) has developed “Considerations for the quality assurance of e-learning provision”. These include 36 indicators for digital education, mapped across the ESG (Huertas et al., 2018[49]). Other international quality frameworks for digital education that have been widely used by HEIs across the EU include the E-xcellence (EADTU, 2016[50]) and DigCompOrg frameworks (Kampylis et al., 2015[51]), or the European Maturity Model for Blended Education (Goeman, Poelmans and Van Rompaey, 2018[52]).
An important consideration for Lithuania in this context is to ensure that any specific guidance or standards developed for digital higher education are clearly linked to the standards used for in-person study modes. This will avoid the risk of increasing administrative burden for HEIs and SKVC, stifling innovation and creating differences in the (perceived) quality of digital and in-person programmes (Staring et al., 2022[15]). SKVC can consider two approaches:
Approach 1: A first approach consists of embedding specific indicators for digital education across the standards of the evaluation frameworks used for in-person education. An example is Estonia, which has revised its Guidelines for Institutional Accreditation (HAKA, 2022[53]) by including specific guidance for the implementation of the twelve standards in digital contexts. Every seven years, institutions are evaluated against these standards as part of institutional accreditation. With OECD support, Hungary has also developed specific indicators for digital provision (OECD, 2023[26]).
Approach 2: A second approach consist of developing a separate set of standards or guidelines for digital higher education, while clearly linking these to the overall quality framework. In Australia, guidance on how to implement the “Higher Education Standards (HES) Framework (Threshold Standards)” in a digital context is provided in a separate “Guidance Note on Technology-Enhanced Learning” (TEQSA, 2019[54]). While the Guidance Note is not binding for institutions or formally checked as part of accreditation, the note provides a list of “risks to quality” in technology-enhanced learning (TEL), linked to relevant HES standards. Another example is Ireland, where topic-specific “Quality Assurance Guidelines for Providers of Fully Online and Blended Programmes” are linked to core quality assurance standards (QQI, 2018[55]).
In addition to adapting their regulatory frameworks to the emergence of digital higher education, many OECD and EU countries are starting to develop national frameworks and guidance for micro-credentials. In Europe, the EU “Council Recommendation on a European Approach to Micro-Credentials” has played an important role in guiding countries in these efforts (Council of the EU, 2022[56]). While an in-depth analysis of the current state of micro-credentials in Lithuania and how to embed them in legislation was outside the scope of this Technical Support Implementation (TSI) project, this will be another important area for Lithuania to focus on in the coming years. Especially as the expectations on higher education to play a more active role in supporting adult upskilling and reskilling will likely increase (OECD, 2024[57]).
To implement Recommendation 1, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: Revise, in consultation with HEIs and based on the definition of digital higher education presented above, the existing categorisation of study formats in Articles 26 and 27 of the “Descriptor of General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies”, to introduce the distinction between three modes of study (i.e. online, hybrid, and in-person/blended). HEIs could be given full autonomy to decide on the study format in which they offer their courses or programmes, except in certain disciplines or institutions where quality risks are observed.
Action point 2: Develop specific quality standards and indicators for digital higher education, drawing on existing quality frameworks both nationally and internationally. These indicators could then be clearly linked to or embedded across SKVC’s existing evaluation frameworks, to ensure that future quality assessments are sensitive to the specificities of online, hybrid and digitally enhanced forms of teaching and learning.
Action point 3: Consider developing a national framework for micro-credentials, to enable the development of shorter and more flexible learner pathways in Lithuanian higher education that can support upskilling and reskilling throughout life. In light of declining youth cohorts, Lithuania can consider giving HEIs funding to pilot the development of such alternative credentials.
Recommendation 2: Make study field descriptors less binding, increase the frequency of their updates, and shift towards developing and issuing thematic guidance
To promote further programme innovation and institutional responsibility for quality, Lithuania will need to rethink the way in which the study field descriptors are currently being used by HEIs and how frequently they are revised (SKVC, 2025[3]). Instead of providing discipline-specific guidance, Lithuania should consider developing less prescriptive thematic guidance on key themes of relevance to all HEIs.
A first action point relates to mitigating the risk that HEIs and instructors seek to comply narrowly with the requirements in the study field descriptors. Like most other higher education systems in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), Lithuania’s study-field descriptors act as top-level steering documents with a certain binding character for HEIs. The high level of detail included in the descriptors, coupled with the fact that HEIs are required to demonstrate compliance against them as part of SKVC’s external evaluation procedures, means that many HEIs feel limited to introduce innovative pedagogies or study content. A recent report by the European University Association confirms that while in almost all European countries “institutions are free to determine the content of degrees other than regulated professions [...] in Lithuania the quality assurance agency determines some of the content of studies” (EUA, 2023, p. 48[8]).
To mitigate the risk of narrow compliance with top-level steering documents and incentivise programme innovation, some higher education systems include explicit statements in their equivalent subject-specific standards or frameworks, specifying that they only serve as guidance for programme development (OECD, 2025[47]). A good example can be found in the United Kingdom, where the Subject Benchmark Statements developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) include an explicit “link to regulation” section. This section explicitly states that the benchmarks are meant to be used as guidance by HEIs, and do not constitute binding regulation (see Box 3.3Box 3.3). Systematically including such a statement in each study field descriptor and reducing the level of detail included in them can be a first action for Lithuania to ensure that HEIs do not restrict their vision when developing new programmes or updating existing ones. It may also open up the possibility of experimentation to develop inter-disciplinary study programmes.
In the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), the steering documents on programme design and delivery, developed by QAA, have a non-binding character. Subject Benchmark Statements offer broad statements on what graduates are expected to be able to know and do in specific subject areas at the end of their studies. In each benchmark statement, QAA explicitly states that these frameworks are not to be seen as regulation. Instead, they function as guidance and a tool for quality enhancement, anchoring the responsibility for programme design and review with individual providers. For example, the subject benchmark statement for Chemistry includes the following note:
The responsibility for academic standards lies with the higher education provider who awards the degree. [...] This Statement does not interpret legislation, nor does it incorporate statutory or regulatory requirements. [...] Because the Statement describes outcomes and attributes expected at the threshold standard of achievement in a UK-wide context, many higher education providers will use them as an enhancement tool for course design and approval, and for subsequent monitoring and review, in addition to helping demonstrate the security of academic standards (QAA UK, 2022, pp. 1-2[58]).
Source: Adapted from OECD (2025[47]), “Fostering Excellence in VET and Higher Education: Going Beyond Quality Assurance”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 119, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6862056-en.
A second action point relates to ensuring that the study field descriptors remain relevant. This is crucial, as it is likely that the descriptors will continue to play a major role in driving curriculum development and review in Lithuanian higher education for the foreseeable future. As noted in Section 3.1, since they were first introduced in 2015, most descriptors have only been updated once. For some study fields (e.g. engineering or the information and technology (IT) sector) this is not frequent enough to keep up with rapid developments in the economy, society and research. The rapid growth of generative AI is pushing HEIs to rethink the content and structure of study programmes even further. Based on an OECD review of international practices, there are three options Lithuania may consider (OECD, 2025[47]):
Option 1: The first, more “top down” option, consists of introducing a legal requirement for all study field descriptors to be reviewed at least once every 2-3 years (for the VET professional standards, it is five years). For professionally-oriented or short-cycle programmes, this could even be reduced to once every year. For each study field, SKVC should appoint a dedicated expert panel including representatives from academia, the labour market, and students. To promote inter-disciplinarity and reduce the workload on SKVC, the agency can also consider appointing multi-disciplinary expert panels, taking inspiration from the approach taken in VET (see Section 4.1). Eighteen professional committees are responsible for updating the content of multiple and related professional standards. For higher education, each panel could also be made responsible for multiple and related descriptors, which could promote inter-disciplinarity at system level.
Option 2: The second, more “bottom up” option, consists of fostering more continual collaboration and peer learning among academic experts to foster disciplinary excellence. Ireland offers an example of such an approach. Subject- or discipline-specific requirements applicable to private providers offering recognised awards are supplemented with a national framework for Disciplinary Excellence in Learning, Teaching and Assessment (DELTA Framework). The Framework contains five broad principles for curriculum design and review, without specifying any detailed content or pedagogical approaches. To incentivise HEIs to adhere to the principles included in the framework, the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education launched the DELTA Award. In addition to giving national recognition to discipline groups that adhere to the framework, winning teams get the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of teaching and learning in their discipline across the country (QQI, 2024[59]).
Option 3: The third option consists of adopting a stronger skills orientation in future updates of the study field descriptors. To do so, Lithuania could consider strengthening the role of the Government Strategic Analysis Centre (STRATA) or another relevant body to provide sector- or discipline-specific data on new and emerging skills needs, or key trends in professions which disciplines are preparing students for. This information could then be used by SKVC expert panels (see Option 1 above) to give them a more objective evidence base for their discussions. However, at present, STRATA does not have a specific mandate or resources to carry out such tailored analysis.
A third action point for Lithuania is to supplement the study-field descriptors with broader sectoral guidance on key themes of relevance to the entire higher education sector. Internationally, QA agencies appear to be moving away from subject-specific guidance and evaluation towards advising and evaluating how HEIs respond to wider societal themes. Micro-credentials, digitalisation, environmental sustainability, social inclusion and internationalisation are some examples of global themes that QA agencies are starting to pay closer attention to (OECD, 2025[24]). There are several reasons why QA agencies are doing this. First, it is related to the broader trend of QA agencies moving away from programme evaluation towards assessing quality at institution and system level (see Recommendation 4, Section 3.2). A second reason is that focusing on widely shared societal challenges offers an opportunity to create a platform for discussion and exchange among HEIs and foster inter-disciplinarity. Finally, it has the potential to support quality enhancement in a more equitable way across different disciplines.
In close consultation with the government and the higher education sector, SKVC will need to determine which theme(s) are important for sectoral guidance to be developed on. Three themes that were reported frequently by stakeholders: how to offer good quality online and hybrid education, how to support the inclusion of international students effectively, and how to develop and assure the quality of micro-credentials. To develop guidelines for Lithuanian HEIs on these topics, there are several international examples Lithuania can take inspiration from (see OECD (2025[24])). For example, QQI in Ireland has developed several topic-specific guidelines to supplement core and discipline-specific standards, such as guidelines for providers of online and blended programmes and guidelines on how to ensure quality in English language education for international learners (QQI, 2024[60]). Estonia has developed guidelines on internationalisation (HAKA, 2020[61]), and in the Netherlands HEIs can request a “special feature” assessment of four themes as part of their programme evaluations: internationalisation, entrepreneurship, sustainable higher education, and small-scale and intensive provision (NVAO, 2024[62]).
To implement Recommendation 2, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: Develop and include a “link to regulation” statement in all study field descriptors, to make more explicit to HEIs and SKVC experts that the descriptors are meant to be used as guidance by the higher education sector for programme development.
Action point 2: Increase the frequency of updates of study field descriptors from every 5-7 years to every 2-3 years by SKVC – even every year for professionally-oriented programmes and short-cycle programmes. Incentivise academic staff to engage more regularly with the study field descriptors to promote disciplinary excellence, and the availability and use of skills intelligence should be used to inform future updates.
Action point 3: Move from a discipline-specific orientation of standard-setting towards providing sectoral guidance on widely shared sectoral challenges. Some potential areas of priority for Lithuania include digitalisation, micro-credentials and internationalisation.
3.2.2. Develop a risk-based and enhancement-driven quality assurance system, geared towards promoting greater institutional responsibility for quality
As noted, Lithuania has already taken several steps to devolve greater responsibility for the QA of teaching and learning to higher education institutions. Progress has also been made in making evaluation and accreditation activities less burdensome and more enhancement oriented. To continue building on these achievements, several further changes can be considered by Lithuania.
Recommendation 3: Grant self-accrediting rights to well-performing HEIs and raise the bar for new programmes to demonstrate labour-market relevance
At the heart of Lithuania’s quality assurance framework for higher education should be the ambition for all providers to, with time, become fully self-accrediting institutions. Internationally, providers with an established record of quality are given greater or even full autonomy to launch new programmes, with programme-level approval and evaluation reserved for newer market entrants or providers where risks to quality are observed (OECD, 2025[24]). The European Commission also recommends EU member states to “give them [i.e. HEIs] the possibility to self-accredit programmes [...] and become exempt from (external) programme accreditation” (EC, 2024, p. 4[33]).
Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, all countries except Croatia grant some form of self-accrediting authority to HEIs in one of three ways: a) based on the level or type of education (e.g. in Norway universities have more self-accrediting rights than colleges); b) based on the ownership of providers (e.g. in Austria and Ireland self-accrediting rights are limited to public providers only); and c) based the results of a specific external evaluation (e.g. in Australia a specific application procedure exists for HEIs to obtain unlimited or limited self-accrediting rights) (OECD, 2025[24]). In line with these trends, Lithuania should consider giving well-performing HEIs the possibility to obtain expanded self-accrediting rights. They could obtain these rights as part of the next institutional evaluation cycle, scheduled to commence in 2028. A potential model for consideration by SKVC is presented in Table 3.9.
Source: Based on Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) (2022[63]). Application Guide for Self-Accrediting Authority, www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/application-guides/application-guide-self-accrediting-authority (accessed on 17 October 2022).
As discussed in more detail in Section 5.1, there is a high level of competition for students and duplication in the programmes offered by Lithuanian HEIs. Some stakeholders reported to the OECD team that this presents a risk of “diploma mills” in the country. Lithuania may therefore consider balancing a possible expansion of self-accrediting rights with a more in-depth assessment of the labour-market relevance and student demand for new programmes. Denmark and the Netherlands offer two examples of systems where such assessments are carried out. They are led by a separate body or commission, either prior to or in parallel to programme accreditation carried out by the QA agency (OECD, 2025[24]). Building on these two examples, a potential model for Lithuania is presented in Table 3.10.
Source: Adapted from CDHO (n.d.[64]), Commissie Doelmatigheid Hoger Onderwijs (CDHO) [Commission Macro-Efficiency Higher Education], https://www.cdho.nl/ (accessed on 26 July 2024) and Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (n.d.[65]), Prækvalifikation [Prequalification], https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/institutioner-og-drift/styring-af-uddannelsesudbud/praekvalifikation/kvalitetssikring-og-akkreditering (accessed on 26 July 2024).
To implement Recommendation 3, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: Develop a procedure and criteria for granting expanded self-accrediting rights to HEIs, possibly by linking it to the next institutional review cycle in 2028.
Action point 2: Create a Commission, separate from SKVC, responsible for assessing the relevance of new programme proposals and monitoring system-level coherence.
Recommendation 4: Develop a holistic risk assessment framework, building on the existing study-field monitoring procedure
The biggest innovation in higher education QA in recent years has perhaps been the adoption of more light-touch and risk-based approaches to monitoring and assuring quality. Such approaches seek to “reduce the regulatory burden on the regulated and the regulator and to ensuring the efficient use of resources” (Mishko, 2015, p. 7[66]). The premise of risk-based quality assurance is that quality risks are not equally distributed across the sector, and that the resources for external evaluation should be targeted to those providers and programmes where the greatest risks to quality are observed. This puts the onus of QA on HEIs and exempts providers meeting expected standards from unnecessary regulatory burden and extensive external evaluation (OECD, 2025[24]).
Across the nine comparator jurisdictions analysed for Lithuania, evidence of risk-based approaches was identified in Lithuania and Scotland, with Estonia and Norway reporting that they were reflecting on the introduction of such systems (OECD, 2025[24]). Outside Europe, Australia’s risk-based quality assurance system is often cited as being one of the most progressive in the world (see Box 3.4). In Europe, risk-based approaches have been slow to develop, in part due to the requirement of QA agencies operating under the ESG to carry out cyclical institutional reviews (E4 Group, 2015[23]). However, the trend of “moving up” the level of external evaluation from programme to institution level – Lithuania is following the same trend – presents an opportunity to combine a risk-based approach to quality monitoring at programme level with cyclical reviews at institution level for all providers, in line with the ESG. The systematic collection and analysis of quality risks, based on a solid set of indicators, can be used to inform the intensity of programme-level reviews, as well as the scope and focus of institutional reviews, without exempting any HEI from being subject to external evaluation by the QA agency.
First introduced in 2015, TEQSA’s Risk Assessment Framework (RAF) seeks to identify potential risks of non-compliance of higher education providers with regulatory requirements. The main purpose of the risk assessments is to reduce the administrative burden on the sector and strengthen the protection of student interests and the sector’s overall reputation. At the same time, the regular collection and assessment about performance data across is seen by TEQSA as a way to engage in more regular dialogue with providers about emerging issues, and to support the development of relevant quality enhancement activities for the sector (TEQSA, 2024[67]).
TEQSA’s risk assessment is carried out yearly for all Australian higher education providers and covers ten risk indicators across four main areas: 1) regulatory history and standing; 2) students (study load, experience and outcomes); 3) academic staff profile; and 4) financial viability and sustainability. For each indicator, risk thresholds have been developed, taking into account provider context and risk controls (where information is available). Each year, TEQSA makes an overall judgement against “Risk to Students” and “Risks to Financial Position”, using a high, moderate or low rating (i.e. a traffic light system). If the risk assessment identifies potential concerns, then TEQSA will undertake one of five actions: 1) no action (if a risk was already known by TEQSA and the provider is already implementing a response); 2) request additional information from the provider to determine if further action is required; 3) issue a recommendation to the provider to closely monitor the risk in the coming years; 4) take regulatory action, for example by carrying out an additional compliance assessment outside of the regular assessment schedule; or 5) embed the identified risk in the upcoming assessment.
Source: Based on TEQSA (2022[68]), Key findings from the 2021 risk assessment cycle, www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/key-findings-from-2021-risk-assessment-cycle_0.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024) and TEQSA (2024[69]), Higher Education Integrity Unit, www.teqsa.gov.au/about-us/teqsa-overview/higher-education-integrity-unit (accessed on 23 August 2024).
In Lithuania, the foundation for the development of a risk-based QA system already exists. SKVC has been monitoring study-field performance based on seven indicators since 2021 (see Section 3.1). However, as noted, several issues with this procedure exist, and it would need to be modified to turn it into a fully-fledged risk-assessment framework to supplement the cyclical review of institutions every seven years. If Lithuania wishes to build such a system, SKVC will need to consider three key major changes:
Change 1: First, SKVC will need to revise the set of indicators currently being used for study field monitoring, as many of these are not notably relevant or indicative of quality (e.g. the number of outgoing students and teaching staff, the number of enrolled students, or students’ Matura examination results). The indicators on time-to-completion, drop-out and graduate employment rates do constitute useful output and outcome indicators. However, a focus on output/outcomes narrowly focuses on detecting failures, and not prevention. Drawing on the indicators used by Australia, Lithuania could consider including additional input indicators, such as: student-to-staff ratios, the proportion of teaching staff on casual contracts, or the financial situation of the institution.
Change 2: SKVC will need to supplement its revised set of quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence and change its approach to the way it defines and uses risk thresholds. International experience suggests that quantitative data alone cannot adequately capture the reality of teaching and learning and serve as proxies for quality at best. Their use in quality assessment also risks incentivising “creative compliance” among HEIs against a narrow set of performance metrics instead of pursuing deeper pedagogical innovation – especially if uniform risk thresholds are used, which is the case in Lithuania (OECD, 2024[45]). The qualitative information used by Australia to supplement its quantitative risk analysis may serve as inspiration for Lithuania. SKVC may consider incorporating information on providers’ regulatory standing and history (e.g. results from previous study field and institutional evaluations, student complaints or whistleblowing) to obtain a holistic picture on providers’ activities. SKVC can also engage in regular dialogue with HEIs to verify the quality of data and adapt risk thresholds to the specific context and student population of each institution.
Change 3: SKVC should consider keeping the performance of individual HEIs on the risk indicators confidential. At present, SKVC makes HEIs’ individual performance on the seven study field indicators publicly available on the EMIS platform (SKVC, 2024[37]). This increases the risk of HEIs narrowly focusing on trying to improve their performance against, and SKVC basing their risk assessments on, a limited set of metrics. As noted by TEQSA, “risk thresholds are [or, should be] considered in the context of other information and are not the sole determinant of risk ratings” (TEQSA, 2024[67]). Instead, SKVC should keep HEIs’ individual risk ratings confidential and only make aggregated findings publicly available. This approach would also give SKVC greater discretion and flexibility in making its risk assessment, and to separately communicate risk ratings to individual providers, considering their context (e.g. depending on the institution, more/less data will be available, and some data will be more/less important than others to inform a final decision).
Once a holistic risk assessment framework has been developed, SKVC can consider using the information on the main quality risks for two main purposes. First, to identify programmes where key quality risks are observed, and where an additional quality review might be needed (to supplement the mandatory quality reviews for regulated professions). A second use for the risk assessments can be to help inform the scope and focus of the mandatory reviews at institution level for all providers. For institutions rated as “low risk”, the burden of proof and scope of the external review could be reduced. This would then free up resources for SKVC to devote greater attention to the assessment of institutions rated as “medium risk” or “high risk”. Such institutions could be asked to provide additional evidence or be supported more closely to develop and implement action plans to address observed quality concerns. For all institutions, at-risk programmes or specific challenges identified as part of the annual risk assessments could be incorporated as a specific focus area in institutional review, making the procedure more targeted and relevant to the specific context of each institution. In Estonia, for example, which recently moved away from study-field evaluation to conducting institutional review only, a sample of study programmes is now always included in the institutional review exercise (HAKA, 2022[53]).
To implement Recommendation 4, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: SKVC to develop a risk assessment framework that will allow the creation of annual risk profiles of each higher education provider in Lithuania. To do so, SKVC could build on the existing study field monitoring procedure by developing a more comprehensive set of input, process and output/outcome indicators, supplemented with qualitative data and regular dialogue with institutions to obtain a holistic and accurate picture on quality risks. HEIs’ individual performance against the risk indicators should be kept confidential, with only aggregate findings made public to avoid institutional compliance against a narrow set of performance metrics.
Action point 2: SKVC to use the information collected from annual risk assessments to adapt the scope and focus of the next institutional review exercise, scheduled for 2028. The burden of proof and scope of the institutional review could be reduced for HEIs rated as “low risk”, allowing SKVC to dedicate more resources to those institutions where greater quality risks have been observed.
Recommendation 5: Plan the timing and focus of the next institutional review cycle with the Research Council of Lithuania, and adapt standards and methods in function of assessed HEIs
SKVC’s intention to no longer conduct study-field evaluation and make institutional quality assessment the main evaluation procedure was welcomed by all HEIs consulted by the OECD team (see Section 3.1). However, there are several additional changes SKVC could consider to further reduce the administrative burden associated with external review, and to increase the overall relevance and impact for HEIs. Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, several innovations in the design and implementation of quality standards and evaluation methods were identified (OECD, 2025[24]). There are four specific innovations SKVC may consider embedding in its next institutional evaluation cycle:
Option 1: In addition to merging study-field and institutional evaluation, a first option SKVC should consider is to plan the timing and focus of institutional reviews with the Research Council of Lithuania (LMT). Differences in the timing of SKVC’s institutional evaluations (done every seven years) and LMT’s research evaluations (done every four to six years, depending on the type of review) make this challenging at present. If SKVC and LMT were to follow a similar evaluation cycle (e.g. a six-year cycle), this could enable the agencies to plan their reviews sequentially (i.e. “one assessment per institution per year”), with data and evidence from previous assessments informing each other (i.e. “collect once, use multiple times”). In the future, even closer integration of education and research assessment may be considered, especially for the evaluation of doctoral education. France offers a good example of research and education integration. Since 2023, institutional evaluation covers strategic and operational quality management (domain 1), policy for research, innovation and engagement with society (domain 2) and education, student and campus life (domain 3). Previously, there were three separate procedures for institutional evaluation, programme evaluation and the external evaluation of research units (Hcéres, 2021[70]).
Option 2: A second option for SKVC to consider is to move away from its current “prescriptive” evaluation framework (which applies the same standards to all provider types) towards a more “open” one. Such a framework seeks to be more responsive to the needs of individual institutions by giving providers the freedom to choose certain evaluation areas, in addition to areas that are common to all institutions (Bensimon et al., 2023[71]). For example, Austria’s gguidelines for the institutional audit of universities cover five broad standards, as well as a “voluntary in-depth focus”. The Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Austria’s (AQ Austria) voluntary theme evaluation has “the sole view to sole view to enhancing the quality. It does not, however, influence the certification decision” (AQ Austria, 2021, p. 8[72]). In Finland, too, HEIs can select one area that is central to their profile and have it assessed as part of their institutional audit (FINEEC, 2019[73]).
Option 3: In addition to making space for institution-specific priorities or challenges, SKVC could consider embedding common global or sectoral challenges in its evaluation frameworks, for instance by adding a lens on digitalisation, climate change, internationalisation, or the rapid emergence of generative AI to the evaluation framework. In close consultation with the sector, SKVC may also consider identifying different themes for the evaluation of universities and colleges, to promote greater institutional profiling. For universities, research or enhancing the quality of doctoral education could be a focus of the evaluation, while for colleges the focus could be on work-based learning or collaboration with VET providers to improve transitions between ISCED 4 provision (offered by VET providers) and ISCED 5/6 programmes (offered by colleges).
Option 4: A fourth option is to group together HEIs that share similar challenges or characteristics and facilitate peer learning or benchmarking between them as part of the institutional review. Such an approach can help institutions to not only improve their own internal QA practices, but also foster inter-institutional collaboration and partnership-building (OECD, 2025[24]). Lithuania could take inspiration from Finland, where HEIs can select a partner institution as part of institutional evaluation and engage in “benchlearning” with them (FINEEC, 2019[73]). Norway offers another relevant example for Lithuania. In its latest institutional audit (carried out between 2018 and 2024), the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) conducted audit heats, which consisted of grouping together institutions with similar contexts or circumstances, encouraging them to share and discuss their internal QA practices with each other (ENQA, 2019[74]).
To implement Recommendation 5, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: To further reduce the administrative burden of external review on HEIs, SKVC could consider planning and aligning the timing and focus of its institutional reviews with the research and doctoral education assessments carrier out by the Lithuanian Research Council.
Action point 2: To make the next institutional review exercise more relevant for HEIs, SKVC could consider moving towards a more open and collaborative evaluation framework, identifying and embedding sectoral themes in its evaluation frameworks (possibly different for universities and colleges), and create opportunities for inter-institutional peer learning and benchmarking.
Recommendation 6: Give SKVC an explicit mandate and resources for sectoral enhancement
In systems where more hands-off, risk-based and institution-based approaches to external QA are being adopted, QA bodies pay more attention to actively guiding and collaborating with institutions to improve their internal QA systems (OECD, 2025[24]). As noted, SKVC’s legal mandate is currently narrowly focused on the evaluation and accreditation of higher education providers and their programmes, as well as the recognition of foreign and upper-secondary qualifications. As a result, most of SKVC’s resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining quality standards through conducting external assessments, as do most QA agencies in other higher education systems in the EHEA (EC/EACEA/Eurydice, 2024[75]). This leaves the agency with limited capacity to support HEIs with follow-up and enhancement.
To strengthen SKVC’s role in supporting sectoral enhancement, a first step to be taken by Lithuania would be to explicitly include this in SKVC’s mission, as defined in the Law on Higher Education and Research (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]). Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, several include enhancement as an explicit mission or function in the legal basis of their QA agency for higher education, alongside quality assessment and review. For example, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act mandates the Scottish Funding Council to “secure that provision is made for (a) assessing and (b) enhancing the quality of fundable further education and fundable higher education provided by [post-16 education] bodies” (Scottish Government, 2005[76]). Similarly, the Estonian Quality Agency for Education’s (HAKA) legal basis includes an explicit mandate and budget to organise “training activities and consulting on evaluation and quality in the field of education” or “quality development projects and pilot evaluations in the field of education” (Government of Estonia, 2024[77]). Norway’s Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) is also legally required to control compliance with legal requirements and carry out “targeted development work” (Government of Norway, 2010[78]).
Taking inspiration from these international examples, below are some suggested changes Lithuania could consider incorporating in Articles 17 and 40 in the Law on Higher Education and Research, which describe SKVC’s legal mission and function – OECD additions in bold (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]):
“To promote the quality of activities of higher education institutions through an external assessment and accreditation of institutions and study programmes, and collaboration with the sector to support their continuous improvement” (Article 17)
“Activities of higher education and research institutions must be constantly improved, primarily by institutions themselves, with support from SKVC and LMT, and taking into consideration the findings of self-assessment and external evaluation” (Article 40)
As a next step, SKVC will need to consult with the college and university sectors to identify the types of services that would be most beneficial to support enhancement in each sector, as well as rethink its organisational structure and resources to implement these activities. Figure 3.1 offers a proposal of what such a revised SKVC organisational structure might look like. Since, from 2028, SKVC no longer plans to conduct study-field evaluation, there would no longer be a need for a Programme Evaluation Commission or Programme Implementation Division. Instead, the resources used to maintain these bodies could be redirected towards a Higher Education Enhancement Commission and Quality Enhancement Division. While the latter would be responsible implementing the enhancement activities, the former would provide strategic advice and guidance by liaising with the college and university sectors and government. A recent evaluation of QAA’s enhancement work has found that it is crucial to align enhancement activities to strategic ambitions and ongoing changes at institution and sectoral level in order to generate the “critical” mass needed to support their implementation (Jones-Devitt and Austen, 2024[79]). A similar structure exists in Scotland, where a Tertiary Enhancement Activity Advisory Group (TEAAG), in collaboration with the College Development Network (CDN), is responsible for providing strategic advice and guidance on QAA’s enhancement activities for the tertiary sector (QAA Scotland, 2024[80]).
Note: Green = proposed new divisions to be established by SKVC, which currently do not exist in the agency’s organisational structure.
Source: Adapted from SKVC (2023[81]), The organisational structure of the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), www.skvc.lt/default/en/about/structure (accessed on 13 October 2023).
Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, there are several enhancement services that SKVC could consider offering. In some systems, the QA agencies also charge HEIs for these services, using it as an additional source of income (OECD, 2025[24]). However, in this is context it is important to ensure that any fee-based services remain strictly separate from the mandatory external evaluation and (re-)accreditation procedures, to maintain rigour and independence in the assessment.
Option 1: A first option SKVC may consider is to develop an additional set of more targeted external review service(s) in addition to the mandatory institutional quality assessment. In the Netherlands, for example, HEIs can request a “special feature” assessment as part of programme evaluation, on one of four themes: internationalisation, entrepreneurship, sustainable higher education, and small-scale and intensive provision. Outside the regular evaluation cycle, the assessment will cost institutions EUR 1 000 (NVAO, 2024[62]). In England (United Kingdom), QAA has introduced a new and targeted quality and standards service for HEIs (QAA UK, 2024[82]). In Austria, too, HEIs can contract AQ Austria for topic-specific evaluations or consulting services outside of the regular programme and institution-level evaluation cycles (AQ Austria, 2024[83]).
Option 2: SKVC could expand the number of trainings and workshops organised for HEIs and develop additional guidance and best practice resources accordingly. For some of these, SKVC could ask HEIs to pay a small participation fee or create a “members only” page on its website, making certain materials only available to those institutions that have paid a membership fee.
Option 3: In addition to developing its own enhancement activities and services – focused on the Lithuanian context – SKVC could consider playing a stronger role as a national “brokerage platform” and connect HEIs with international best practice and initiatives. In consultations with the OECD team, some stakeholders argued that Lithuania is a small country and, therefore, best practice at national level is well-known. It may also be difficult for SKVC to “compete” with the enhancement services, resources and trainings organised by other international organisations active in the field. Instead, SKVC could consider on “recycling”, disseminating and connecting HEIs with these international examples and initiatives.
To implement Recommendation 6, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:
Action point 1: Revise Articles 17 and 40 of the Law on Higher Education and Research to give SKVC a legal mandate and resources to develop an enhancement offer.
Action point 2: SKVC to rethink its organisational structure to mobilise resources for quality enhancement, and – in consultation with the sector and government – develop a fee-based sectoral enhancement offer to help strengthen its financial independence from the government.
References
[13] AIKOS (2024), State Register of Study Programmes, https://www.aikos.smm.lt/Registrai/SitePages/Studij%C5%B3%20ir%20mokymo%20programos.aspx (accessed on 10 April 2024).
[83] AQ Austria (2024), Consulting, Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Austria (AQ Austria), Vienna, https://www.aq.ac.at/en/consulting/ (accessed on 24 August 2024).
[72] AQ Austria (2021), Audit of the Internal Quality Management System: Guidelines for universities, Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria (AQ Austria), Vienna, https://www.aq.ac.at/en/audit/dokumente-audit/Audit_Guidelines_for_Universities_10_02_2021_V1.1.pdf?m=1628001858& (accessed on 24 August 2024).
[71] Bensimon, A. et al. (2023), Trends in Quality Audits - Institutional Evaluation Framework: Design and Review Processes among the Agencies of the Quality Audit Network, High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres), https://www.hceres.fr/sites/default/files/media/files/institutional-evaluation-frameworks-design-and-review-processes-among-the-agencies-of-the-quality-audit-network.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[42] Bogdan, E. (2016), Review of excellence at the level of individual subject disciplines, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://skvc.lrv.lt/media/viesa/saugykla/2024/3/NrE93pLEvi0.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).
[14] Broberg, N. and G. Golden (2023), “How are governments navigating the digital higher education landscape?”, OECD Education Working Papers No. 303 OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/fr/education/how-are-oecd-governments-navigating-the-digital-higher-education-landscape-93468ccb-en.htm (accessed on 26 April 2024).
[64] CDHO (n.d.), Commissie Doelmatigheid Hoger Onderwijs (CDHO) [Commission Macro-Efficiency Higher Education], https://www.cdho.nl/ (accessed on 26 July 2024).
[56] Council of the EU (2022), Council recommends European approach to micro-credentials - Consilium, Council of the European Union (EU), Brussels, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/16/council-recommends-european-approach-to-micro-credentials/ (accessed on 22 June 2022).
[65] Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (n.d.), Prækvalifikation [Prequalification], https://ufm.dk/uddannelse/institutioner-og-drift/styring-af-uddannelsesudbud/praekvalifikation/kvalitetssikring-og-akkreditering (accessed on 26 July 2024).
[23] E4 Group (2015), Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Brussels, http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2025).
[50] EADTU (2016), E-xcellence. Quality Assessment for E-Learning: A Benchmarking Approach., European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), Brussels, https://e-xcellencelabel.eadtu.eu/e-xcellence-review/manual (accessed on 24 June 2022).
[33] EC (2024), Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a European Quality Assurance and Recognition System in Higher Education, European Commission, Brussels, https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Proposal%20for%20a%20Council%20Recommendation%20on%20a%20European%20Quality%20Assurance%20and%20Recognition%20System%20in%20Higher%20Education.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2024).
[75] EC/EACEA/Eurydice (2024), The European Higher Education Area in 2024: Bologna Process Implementation Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/483185 (accessed on 28 August 2024).
[74] ENQA (2019), A brief description of the quality assurance system in Norway, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Brussels, https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/NOKUT.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).
[8] EUA (2023), University Autonomy in Europe IV: The Scorecard 2023, European University Association (EUA) asbl, Brussels, https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1061:university-autonomy-in-europe-iv-the-scorecard-2023.html (accessed on 26 April 2024).
[11] EUA (2013), Quality Assurance in Doctoral Education - Results of the ARDE Project, European University Association (EUA) asbl, Brussels, https://www.eua-cde.org/downloads/publications/2013_byrnej_quality-assurance-arde-project-results.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2024).
[73] FINEEC (2019), Audit Manual for Higher Education Institutions 2019-24, Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), Helsinki, https://www.karvi.fi/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/documents/FINEEC_Audit-manual-for-higher-education-institutions_2019-2024_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2024).
[44] Fumasoli, T., G. Goastellec and B. Kehm (2015), Academic work and careers in Europe: Trends, challenges, perspectives, Springer Cham, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10720-2 (accessed on 15 February 2025).
[52] Goeman, K., S. Poelmans and V. Van Rompaey (2018), Research report on state of the art in blended learning and innovation. European Maturity Model for Blended Education (EMBED), European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), Maastricht, https://www.researchgate.net/project/EMBED-European-Maturity-model-for-Blended-Education-EMBED (accessed on 15 February 2025).
[77] Government of Estonia (2024), Haridus- ja Noorteameti põhimäärus [Statutes of the Education and Youth Board], https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129122020049?leiaKehtiv (accessed on 29 August 2024).
[78] Government of Norway (2010), Forskrift om kvalitetssikring og kvalitetsutvikling i høyere utdanning og fagskoleutdanning [Regulations on quality assurance and quality development in higher education and vocational school education], Ministry of Education, Oslo, https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2010-02-01-96 (accessed on 29 August 2024).
[53] HAKA (2022), Guidelines for Institutional Accreditation, Estonian Quality Agency for Vocational and Higher Education (HAKA), Tallinn, https://ekka.edu.ee/wp-content/uploads/IA_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022).
[61] HAKA (2020), Teaching and learning of international students in the Estonian Higher Education Institutions, Estonian Quality Agency for Education (HAKA), Tallinn, https://haka.ee/en/teaching-learning-international-students-estonian-heis/ (accessed on 22 January 2025).
[70] Hcéres (2021), Référentiel d’évaluation des établissements [Guidelines for institutional evaluation], Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur (Hcéres) [High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcéres)], https://www.hceres.fr/sites/default/files/media/downloads/referentiel-devaluation-des-etablissements_0.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2024).
[49] Huertas, E. et al. (2018), Considerations for quality assurance of e-learning provision. Report from the ENQA Working Group VIII on Quality Assurance and E-Learning., European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), Brussels, https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/Considerations-for-QA-of-e-learning-provision.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2021).
[79] Jones-Devitt, S. and L. Austen (2024), Evaluation of 20 Years of Enhancement Themes 2003-2023, UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA UK), Gloucester, https://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/about-enhancement-themes/evaluation-of-the-enhancement-themes# (accessed on 3 September 2024).
[51] Kampylis, P. et al. (2015), Promoting effective digital-age learning: a European framework for digitally-competent educational organisations, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Brussels, https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/european-framework-digitally-competent-educational-organisations-digcomporg_en (accessed on 25 July 2022).
[4] KPMPC (2025), Profesiniai Standartai [Professional Standards], Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC), Vilnius, https://www.kpmpc.lt/kpmpc/kvalifikaciju-formavimas/standartai-2/profesiniai-standartai/ (accessed on 6 May 2024).
[17] KTU, VILNIUS TECH and VU (2020), Nuotolinio darbo ir mokymosi proceso organizavimo modelis ir rekomendacijos ekstremaliam ir pereinamajam laikotarpiui (EKSTRE) [A model and recommendations for the organisation of distance working and learning for emergency and transition (EKSTRE)], Funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMT), implemented by Kaunas University of Technology (coordinator), Vilnius Gediminas Technical University university (partner) and Vilnius University (partner), Kaunas, https://if.ktu.edu/projects/nuotolinio-darbo-ir-mokymosi-proceso-organizavimo-modelis-ir-rekomendacijos-ekstremaliam-ir-pereinamajam-laikotarpiui-ekstre/ (accessed on 17 January 2025).
[46] LMT (n.d.), Teisės aktai [Legislation], Research Council of Lithuania (LMT), Vilnius, https://lmt.lrv.lt/lt/teisine-informacija/teises-aktai/ (accessed on 4 March 2024).
[66] Mishko, J. (2015), Regulation and assuring quality in VET: International developments, National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), Adelaide, https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/all-publications/regulating-and-quality-assuring-vet-international-developments (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[36] National Audit Office of Lithuania (2021), Ar užtikrinama studijų kokybė aukštosiose mokyklose [Is the quality of studies ensured in higher education institutions], National Audit Office of Lithuania, Vilnius, https://www.eurosai.org/en/databases/audits/Is-the-quality-of-studies-ensured-in-higher-education-institutions/ (accessed on 4 March 2024).
[62] NVAO (2024), Special Features General, Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO), https://www.nvao.net/en/procedures/the-netherlands/special-features-general (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[24] OECD (2025), “Ensuring quality in VET and higher education: Getting quality assurance right”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 118, https://doi.org/10.1787/812ff006-en.
[47] OECD (2025), “Fostering Excellence in Higher Education and VET: Going Beyond Quality Assurance”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 119, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6862056-en (accessed on 17 January 2025).
[57] OECD (2024), “Promoting green and digital innovation: The role of upskilling and reskilling in higher education”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 103, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/feb029df-en (accessed on 15 January 2025).
[45] OECD (2024), “The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 91, https://doi.org/10.1787/5cc2d673-en (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[26] OECD (2023), Ensuring Quality Digital Higher Education in Hungary, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en (accessed on 5 April 2023).
[19] OECD (2021), “Quality and value of micro-credentials in higher education : Preparing for the future”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, Vol. 40, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/quality-and-value-of-micro-credentials-in-higher-education_9c4ad26d-en (accessed on 18 March 2022).
[28] OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en (accessed on 15 January 2025).
[9] Office of the Committee for the Future of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (2024), State Progress Strategy: Lithuania’s Vision for the Future of ’Lithuania 2050’, Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius, https://www.lrs.lt/sip/getFile3?p_fid=83423 (accessed on 10 February 2025).
[18] Ozolinčiūtė, E. (2020), Akademinės etikos užtikrinimas organizuojant studijas nuotoliniu būdu [Academic ethics for the organisation of distance learning], Akademinės etikos ir procedūrų kontrolieriaus tarnyba [Office of the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures of Lithuania], Vilnius, https://etikostarnyba.lt/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Gaires_Akademines-etikos-uztikrinimas-organizuojant-studijas-nuotoliniu-budu.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2024).
[80] QAA Scotland (2024), QAA and the Tertiary Quality Project, QAA Scotland, Glasgow, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/tertiary-quality-project (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[82] QAA UK (2024), Targeted Quality and Standards Service, UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA UK), Gloucester, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/products-and-services/targeted-quality-and-standards-service (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[58] QAA UK (2022), Subject benchmark statement- Chemistry March 2022, UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA UK), Gloucester, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/sbs/sbs-chemistry-22.pdf?sfvrsn=46b1dc81_6 (accessed on 17 January 2025).
[59] QQI (2024), About the DELTA Award, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), Dublin, https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/awards/delta-award/about-the-delta-award/ (accessed on 28 August 2024).
[60] QQI (2024), Code of Practice for Provision of Programmes of English Language Education to International Learners, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), Dublin, https://www.qqi.ie/sites/default/files/2024-01/code-of-practice-for-provision-of-programmes-of-english-language-education-to-international-learners.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).
[55] QQI (2018), Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines for Providers of Blended Learning Programmes, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), Dublin, https://www.qqi.ie/sites/default/files/2023-12/statutory-quality-assurance-guidelines-for-providers-of-blended-and-fully-online-programmes-2023_1.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[38] Republic of Lithuania (2023), Dėl Mokslo ir studijų institucijų studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimo, valstybės biudžeto skatinamojo finansavimo už studijų veiklos pasiekimus lėšų paskirstymo mokslo ir studijų institucijoms, duomenų, kurių reikia siekiant atlikti studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimus, teikimo ir mokslo ir studijų institucijų studijų veiklos pasiekimų vertinimo kriterijų svorio koeficientų nustatymo tvarkos aprašo patvirtinimo [Procedures, data and performance funding of HEI education outcomes monitoring], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/86b1cbb087b611edbdcebd68a7a0df7e/asr (accessed on 16 February 2024).
[39] Republic of Lithuania (2021), On the Approval of the Procedures for the External Evaluation and Accreditation of Studies, Evaluation Areas and Indicators, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/355_23a7f3887e5f74f259c820ddd1e68dd3.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2024).
[10] Republic of Lithuania (2020), Dėl Mokslo doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Science regulations], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/71ae1e80993e11eaa51db668f0092944/asr (accessed on 17 January 2025).
[2] Republic of Lithuania (2016), Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies, Lithuanian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/411_e8a9971b4397a4bd29ca56719501de8e.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2023).
[5] Republic of Lithuania (2016), On the Approval of the Descriptor of Study Cycles, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/National_qualifications/Descriptor_of_Study_Cycles.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2024).
[1] Republic of Lithuania (2009), Higher Education and Research Act, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/548a2a30ead611e59b76f36d7fa634f8 (accessed on 23 January 2024).
[76] Scottish Government (2005), Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/6/section/13 (accessed on 29 August 2024).
[3] SKVC (2025), Study Fields’ Descriptors, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://skvc.lrv.lt/en/quality-assurance/study-fields-descriptors/ (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[43] SKVC (2024), AMIS-3, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/projects/current-projects#AMIS-3 (accessed on 6 February 2024).
[40] SKVC (2024), Analysis, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://skvc.lrv.lt/en/quality-assurance/analysis/ (accessed on 17 April 2024).
[29] SKVC (2024), Evaluation of Studies, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/quality-assurance/study-programme-evaluations (accessed on 7 February 2024).
[37] SKVC (2024), Studijų krypčių stebėsenos rodiklių ataskaita [Indicator monitoring report by study field], Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://rsvis3.emokykla.lt/cognos/bi/?perspective=authoring&id=i7A73CC73E9A144E4B477D3DAEAFE65E1&objRef=i7A73CC73E9A144E4B477D3DAEAFE65E1&action=run&format=HTML&cmPropStr=%7B%22id%22%3A%22i7A73CC73E9A144E4B477D3DAEAFE65E1%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22report%22%2C%22defaultName%22%3A%22Studij%C5%B3%20kryp%C4%8Di%C5%B3%20steb%C4%97senos%20rodikli%C5%B3%20ataskaita%22%2C%22permissions%22%3A%5B%22execute%22%2C%22read%22%2C%22traverse%22%5D%7D (accessed on 16 February 2024).
[12] SKVC (2024), The List of Study Fields and Study Field Groups Used for Classification of Study Programmes and Qualifications in Lithuanian Higher Education Institutions, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/410_ff258adf683d42744dc88485d69aa69e.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2024).
[85] SKVC (2023), SKVC organised a training for students-experts of European Students’ Union (ESU), Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/news/skvc-organised-a-training-for-students-experts-of-european-students-union-esu (accessed on 25 April 2024).
[25] SKVC (2023), Strateginis Planas 2023-2026 [Strategic Plan 2023-2026], Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/SKVC_STRATEGIJA_2023-2026_patvirtinta.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2024).
[81] SKVC (2023), The organisational structure of the centre for quality assessment in higher education (SKVC),, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/about/structure (accessed on 13 October 2023).
[22] SKVC (2021), Descriptor of the Study Fields of Art, Film and Dance, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Descriptors%202022/Theatre%2C%20Film%20and%20Dance.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[86] SKVC (2021), SKVC has successfully completed a training cycle on usage of study field descriptors, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vinlius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/news/skvc-has-successfully-completed-a-training-cycle-on-usage-of-study-field-descriptors (accessed on 25 April 2024).
[84] SKVC (2020), Descriptor of the Study Field of Chemistry, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Descriptors%202022/Chemistry.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[20] SKVC (2020), Descriptor of the Study Field of Chemistry, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Descriptors%202022/Chemistry.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[34] SKVC (2020), Methodology for Conducting Institutional Review in Higher Education, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://skvc.lrv.lt/en/quality-assurance/institutional-review/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).
[31] SKVC (2020), Strategic Plan 2020-2022, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/SKVC%20Strategic%20Plan%202014%E2%80%932016/SKVC_STRATEGY_2020-2022_final_approved_by_the_Board.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
[16] SKVC (2020), STUDIJŲ IR SU STUDIJOMIS SUSIJUSIOS VEIKLOS ORGANIZAVIMAS NUOTOLINIU BŪDU [PROGRAMMES AND PROGRAMME-RELATED ACTIVITIES ORGANISED REMOTELY], Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Kokyb%C4%97s%20u%C5%BEtikrinimas/Analiz%C4%97s/Apklausos_del_studiju_organizavimo_nuotoliniu_budu_apibendrinimas_2020.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
[27] SKVC (2019), Methodology for Evaluation of New Study Programmes, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Teise/Kokybes%20agentura/Methodology%20for%20New%20study%20Programmes.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
[35] SKVC (2019), Methodology for Evaluation of Study Fields, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/Teise/Kokybes%20agentura/Methodology%20for%20Evaluation%20of%20Study%20Fields.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2024).
[32] SKVC (2016), Analysis of 2011-2015 External Review of Higher Education Institutions in Lithuania, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Institutional%20review%20reports/28422_SKVC-knyga-EN.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
[30] SKVC (2016), Collection of Higher Education Evaluation Overviews, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Quality%20Assurance/Analysis/31888%20SKVC%20Auk%C5%A1tojo%20mokslo%20vertinimo%20ap%C5%BEvalg%C5%B3%20rinkinys%20EN.PDF (accessed on 30 January 2024).
[41] SKVC (2015), Analysis of new study programmes submitted to SKVC in 2010-2015, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Quality%20Assurance/Analysis/Analysis%20of%20new%20study%20programmes%20submitted%20to%20SKVC%20in%202010-2015.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2024).
[21] SKVC (2015), Descriptor of the Study Field of Economics, Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC), https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/documents/files/EN%20versija/Descriptors%202022/Economics.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[15] Staring, F. et al. (2022), “Digital higher education: Emerging quality standards, practices and supports”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, Vol. 281, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/digital-higher-education_f622f257-en.html (accessed on 17 March 2023).
[48] Study International (2020), Courses that are extremely difficult or downright impossible to be taught online, https://www.studyinternational.com/news/in-person-classes/ (accessed on 11 October 2022).
[69] TEQSA (2024), Higher Education Integrity Unit, Tertiary Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/about-us/teqsa-overview/higher-education-integrity-unit (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[67] TEQSA (2024), Risk assessment framework, Tertiary Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/how-we-regulate/our-approach-quality-assurance-and-regulation (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[63] TEQSA (2022), Application Guide for Self-Accrediting Authority, Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/resources/application-guides/application-guide-self-accrediting-authority (accessed on 17 October 2022).
[68] TEQSA (2022), Key findings from the 2021 risk assessment cycle, Tertiary Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/key-findings-from-2021-risk-assessment-cycle_0.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).
[54] TEQSA (2019), Guidance note: technology-enhanced learning, Tertiary Education Quality and Standard Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, https://www.teqsa.gov.au/latest-news/publications/guidance-note-technology-enhanced-learning (accessed on 25 July 2022).
[7] Utena College (2021), UTENOS KOLEGIJOS STUDIJŲ PROGRAMŲ RENGIMO IR ATNAUJINIMO TVARKOS APRAŠAS [UTENA COLLEGE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR PREPARATION AND UPDATE OF STUDY PROGRAMS], Utena College of Higher Education, Utena, https://www.utenos-kolegija.lt/upload/file_manager/Kolegija/Dokumentai/2021/Studiju%CC%A8%20programu%CC%A8%20rengimo,%20atnaujinimo%20tvarkos%20apras%CC%8Cas.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
[6] VILNIUS TECH (2018), VILNIAUS GEDIMINO TECHNIKOS UNIVERSITETO STUDIJŲ PROGRAMŲ SUDARYMO IR VYKDYMO BENDRIEJI PRINCIPAI [VILNIUS GEDIMINAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY PROGRAMS GENERAL PRINCIPLES], Vilnius Gediminas University of Technology (VILNIUS TECH), Vilnius, https://vilniustech.lt/files/3714/185/9/11_0/Programu-sudarymas-vykdymas-principai.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
← 1. A score of 100% indicates full institutional autonomy; a score of 0% means full regulation by an external authority. The academic autonomy score is based on the calculation and weighting of institutions’ capacity to: 1) decide on overall student numbers; 2) select students (at bachelor’s and master’s level); 3) introduce and terminate degree programmes; 4) choose the language of instruction (at bachelor’s and master’s level); 5) select quality assurance mechanisms and provider; and 6) design content of degree programmes.
← 2. For example, the descriptor for chemistry states that it seeks to offer “general guidelines that help to express better the learning outcomes of the programme, yet it does not serve as a specification of detailed content of the study programme or subjects” (SKVC, 2020, p. 1[84]).
← 3. The autonomy of academic staff in Lithuanian higher education includes the “freedom to choose methods of and access to research (artistic) and pedagogical activities […] in conformity with the recognised principles of ethics” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]).
← 4. Examples of SKVC procedures and checks include: reviewing and approving the institution’s application documents and programme description before sending to the external review panel; reviewing and approving the expert panel’s review report before sharing with the Programme Evaluation Commission and SKVC Director for review and approval; managing the procurement process to identify and select external experts.
← 5. Whereas 82% of colleges “rather agreed” or “fully agreed” that external reviews had an impact on strategic management, this was only the case for 62% of universities. The figures are similar for the three other thematic areas: quality assurance (82% of colleges vs. 62% of universities), research and artistic activities (82% of colleges vs. 61% of universities) and impact on national/regional development (71% of colleges vs. 54% of universities). The impact and relevance of external reviews on institutional quality management and regional/national development was evaluated positively by 81% and 72% of public institutions respectively. Private institutions rated the impact on these areas at 56% and 14% (SKVC, 2016[32]).
← 6. For example, in addition to preparing a self-assessment report, the methodology for institutional evaluation asks HEIs to prepare a separate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, and to submit the following annexes: a scheme of the institution’s structure, strategic plan and activity report of the last year; the income and expenses of the institution for the last three years; documents regulating the institution’s internal quality assurance system; a list of the most important research publications, projects or other activities on regional or national impact.
← 7. For example: the student register, the State Study Fund (VSF), the Education Management Information System (EIS), data provided by the National Education Agency (NŠA) and the Research Council of Lithuanian (LMT).
← 8. For example, a workshop for the European Students’ Union (ESU) on SKVC’s external evaluation procedures (SKVC, 2023[85]), or a series of trainings for HE staff on how to implement the study field descriptors (SKVC, 2021[86]).