The Gold Standard of Education | Senegal ANAQ-Sup Institutional Habilitation, Programme Accreditation and Decision Reports

Start here: identify the decision before collecting evidence

Senegal’s Autorité nationale d’Assurance Qualité de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, ANAQ-Sup, separates institutional habilitation from programme accreditation. Habilitation is the ministerial authority for a higher-education institution to award qualifications. Programme accreditation concerns a specific course of study. The live databases and published evaluation reports include positive, negative and suspended outcomes, which means a search should verify the exact result rather than merely find the institution’s name.

ANAQ-Sup states that habilitation is mandatory for institutions awarding Licence–Master–Doctorat qualifications and describes a ten-year institutional period. Its programme-accreditation material describes a five-year programme period. These durations do not replace the actual decision date, scope or later report. A learner should match the institution, campus or school, precise qualification and field, decision year, outcome and report before treating a course as currently covered.

This guide was checked on 27 October 2026 against current primary guidance. The ANAQ-Sup portal was checked on 27 October 2026. Its live accreditation page displayed 2026 accredited and non-accredited programme decisions, and its April 2026 Scientific Council notice reported accredited, non-accredited and suspended outcomes. Habilitation and programme accreditation remain separate. Current authority must be tied to the exact institution and programme, with the decision report and applicable period retained. CAMES recognition, admission and professional permission are separate questions.

This specialist sits under The Gold Standard of Education: Learning That Transfers into Life. The parent framework keeps the purpose visible: understand the system, act on the correct evidence and build independence for the next decision.

Contents and reading routes

Use the quick route for an immediate decision, the complete route for a live case, and the teaching route when helping a learner explain the mechanism.

Quick route: chapters 1, 4, 7, 10 and 12.
Complete route: chapters 1–12, authoritative sources, verification workbook and FAQs.
Teaching route: chapters 2–3, worked case in chapter 7, and failure repair in chapter 10.

Open the chapter index

Begin with institution and programme
Confirm the institution
Read habilitation correctly
Match the exact programme
Read all outcome labels
Open the decision report
Work a suspended-programme case
Check the decision period
Separate CAMES and admission
Diagnose common Senegal mistakes
Carry evidence to work or further study
Complete the verification sequence

1. Begin with institution and programme

Habilitation belongs to the institution; accreditation belongs to the programme.

Write both identities before searching.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the receiving organisation changes. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Contents · Next chapter

2. Confirm the institution

Match the legal name, public or private category and school or faculty.

Similar names are not interchangeable.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the record is older than expected. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

3. Read habilitation correctly

Habilitation is authority to award higher-education qualifications in the stated scope.

Retain the outcome and period.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: a deadline moves forward. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

4. Match the exact programme

Find the precise Licence, Master, doctorate or other qualification and field.

An institution entry alone is incomplete.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the programme changes after an offer. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

5. Read all outcome labels

The register and council notices include accredited, non-accredited and suspended decisions.

A search hit is not necessarily approval.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: one identifier is wrong. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

6. Open the decision report

The evaluation report explains the programme and evidence assessed.

Keep it with the database row.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: a listing is current but the intake is not. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

7. Work a suspended-programme case

Suppose the institution is habilitated but the programme decision is suspended.

Do not convert institutional authority into programme approval.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the learner changes jurisdiction. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

8. Check the decision period

ANAQ-Sup describes different institutional and programme periods.

Use the actual dates and any later decision.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: evidence arrives after an internal deadline. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

9. Separate CAMES and admission

CAMES recognition and institutional admission answer additional questions.

Verify them when relevant.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: a published route disappears. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

10. Diagnose common Senegal mistakes

Typical errors include checking only habilitation, missing a negative outcome and ignoring the faculty or report.

Repair the record from institution to receiver.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the decision-maker asks for the original document. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

11. Carry evidence to work or further study

ANAQ-Sup quality decisions support the file but do not compel professional or foreign acceptance.

Ask the receiver in writing.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the search result is correct but incomplete. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents · Next chapter

12. Complete the verification sequence

Confirm institution, school, habilitation, programme, outcome, year, report, period, site, mode and purpose.

Finish with dated copies and a review point.

Decision rehearsal and changed-context transfer

Turn this chapter into a live file. The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use states the present decision in one sentence. ANAQ-Sup, the Ministry responsible for higher education, the public or private institution, school or faculty, programme owner, learner, CAMES where relevant, awarding body, employer, professional regulator and receiving institution supplies only the evidence it owns. the institutional habilitation record, programme-accreditation entry, external-evaluation report, Scientific Council decision, period and outcome, learner offer, transcript, award and written receiving decision records the result. Date every source and distinguish an official fact, an institution-specific decision, an estimate and a personal preference.

Now change one condition: the learner changes goal. Preserve every fact that remains valid and reopen only the conclusions that depend on the changed condition. Name the new page, document, calculation or contact required. This is the difference between understanding a system and memorising one outcome.

Run a boundary test. Write what the current evidence proves, what it does not prove and who has authority over the next decision. Replace one identifier, date or category and repeat the reasoning. If the conclusion changes without a cited rule or written decision, an assumption has entered the file.

Finish with a five-line handover: current state; controlling source; unresolved question; next permitted action; review date. A parent, adviser or future learner should be able to reconstruct the case without relying on memory or a private conversation.

Previous chapter · Contents

Authoritative sources and evidence boundary

These primary sources were checked on 27 October 2026. Reopen the live record near any enrolment, recognition, immigration, transfer, funding or licensing decision because statuses, dates and operating guidance can change.

A source can establish only the fact within its remit. Keep the current authority record beside learner-specific evidence and obtain the responsible organisation’s written decision where acceptance, credit, protection, immigration or eligibility is at stake.

Verification workbook

Complete every line with a dated official page, document, recorded state or named follow-up. A blank is useful because it shows where certainty has not yet been earned.

Present decision
Institution legal name
Public or private category
School or faculty
Habilitation outcome
Habilitation period
Programme title
Qualification level
Field
Programme decision
Decision year
Decision report
Programme period
Campus or site
Study mode
CAMES record if relevant
Learner start date
Learner completion date
Offer
Transcript
Award
Professional authority
Written receiving decision

Build an auditable decision file

Open with the exact decision and its deadline. Attach the current the current ANAQ-Sup institution-programme combination read with its habilitation, programme outcome, decision year, report and applicable period, the learner-specific record and the receiver’s published requirements. A general webpage explains a rule; it does not replace a learner-specific decision from the responsible body.

Create one evidence row for each controlling fact: institution legal name, public or private category, school or faculty, habilitation outcome, habilitation period, programme title, qualification level, field, accredited, non-accredited or suspended outcome, decision year, report, programme period, campus, study mode, learner dates, offer, transcript, award, CAMES record, professional authority and receiving decision. Give every row a source, retrieval date, status and owner. Mark a fact confirmed only when the cited source proves it. Use reported, estimated or pending for everything else.

Separate inputs from outputs. Inputs are facts supplied by the learner, provider or authority. Outputs are comparisons, classifications and decisions made from them. If an output looks wrong, check the input, then the dated rule, then any recorded exception.

Keep a change log for institution, school, habilitation, period, programme, level, field, outcome, report, campus, mode, learner dates and receiving purpose. Record the old fact, new fact, date learned, source and every conclusion that must be reopened. Do not silently overwrite the earlier state; the history explains why a reasonable plan changed.

Add a deadline map with the formal deadline, an earlier internal deadline and the recovery route if evidence arrives late. Where no recovery route is published, record that absence rather than inventing one. Reopen the official page near the action date because archived guidance can look authoritative.

Use a responsibility matrix. the Ministry grants habilitation after the applicable process; ANAQ-Sup evaluates institutions and programmes and publishes quality decisions; institutions decide admission and delivery; CAMES, professional bodies and receiving institutions own separate decisions. If two people assume the other has acted, the file should expose the gap before the deadline.

Keep a contact note for each official enquiry: channel, date, question, answer and reference number. If verbal advice conflicts with a published rule or written decision, ask for clarification in writing before an irreversible action.

Run a source hierarchy check. Put the responsible authority first, current operational guidance second, the learner-specific notice third and informal explanation last. Where two official pages appear inconsistent, record both dates and ask which governs the present case.

Schedule a cold review two working days before any irreversible boundary. Recheck names, identifiers, dates, programme codes, study load and document version. Save the submission acknowledgement without treating receipt as approval.

After the decision, reconcile the notice with the plan line by line. Record what was accepted, refused, limited or deferred and the route for correction, review or appeal. Preserve the original decision when adding later correspondence.

Add a “not yet proved” page. List every conclusion that still depends on institution legal name, public or private category, school or faculty, habilitation outcome, habilitation period, programme title, qualification level, field, accredited, non-accredited or suspended outcome, decision year, report, programme period, campus, study mode, learner dates, offer, transcript, award, CAMES record, professional authority and receiving decision. Beside each item, name the smallest official record that would settle it and the person who can obtain that record. This stops a plausible estimate from drifting into the confirmed column merely because it has been repeated.

Rehearse a correction request before one is needed. Identify the learner, present decision, disputed input, supporting document and requested remedy without claiming an entitlement the evidence cannot establish. Address it to the organisation that owns the record or decision, keep a copy, and record the published response or escalation route.

Ask an independent reader to challenge the file. They should identify the weakest assumption, locate the official sentence that controls it and describe what changes if the assumption fails. Record that answer without deleting the earlier reasoning; the audit trail should show learning, not pretend uncertainty never existed.

Build a conservative time and cost plan beside the evidence file. Show what is already confirmed, what is estimated, which payment or enrolment step becomes irreversible and when. Then test a delayed decision and a less favourable outcome. The exercise does not predict the authority’s answer; it prevents an optimistic reading from becoming an unexamined commitment.

Ask The learner or family checking a Senegalese public or private higher-education institution, school, campus, Licence, Master, doctorate, programme decision or quality report before application, payment, enrolment, transfer, graduation, employment or professional use to narrate the case aloud in under two minutes: “This is my present state; this is the governing source; this is the learner-specific evidence; this is the unresolved boundary; this is my next permitted action.” A listener should be able to distinguish fact, comparison and choice without prompting.

Practise one counterfactual. Change only the institution is habilitated but the programme is non-accredited or suspended, the decision belongs to another school, a five-year period has ended, a positive report is confused with admission or CAMES recognition is assumed without checking and trace which conclusions stay valid. The exercise reveals whether the learner understands the dependency chain or has memorised an answer belonging to another case.

Finish with a retention plan. Keep source documents, decisions, receipts and later corrections for as long as they remain useful to explain the education record. Store identifiers securely and share only what the named recipient needs.

Frequently asked questions

What is institutional habilitation?

It is ministerial authority for an institution to award higher-education qualifications within the stated scope.

Is habilitation the same as programme accreditation?

No. ANAQ-Sup treats them as separate procedures.

Does a database result always mean accredited?

No. The live database includes negative outcomes.

What does suspended mean?

It is a distinct programme outcome that must not be presented as accreditation.

How long do decisions last?

ANAQ-Sup describes ten years for habilitation and five years for programme accreditation, but the actual decision and later updates control.

Why read the evaluation report?

It identifies the programme and evidence behind the decision.

Is ANAQ-Sup status the same as admission or CAMES recognition?

No. Those are separate decisions.

What should a learner retain?

Habilitation, programme row, report, period, offer, transcript, award and receiving decisions.

Close the workbook by explaining the process without notes. A dependable explanation names the authority, present state, evidence, deadline and consequence if one assumption fails.

Continue with this Education batch

These companion guides use the same evidence-first method for a different register, framework or recognition decision.

Continue through the Education branch

Return to The Gold Standard of Education. Continue with the Senegal education-system guide, the accreditation and quality-assurance explainer, the overseas-degree recognition guide. Each guide preserves the specialist owner while showing how records, qualifications and decisions connect.