Assess institutes with transparency

The recent report that the executive committee chairman of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) intended to resign (and later resigned) to protect the ‘sanctity of the chair’ was quite a surprise given that many scramble to be part of the NAAC. The underlying factor behind his move was inaction against possible cases of malpractice by empowered bodies.

The concern raised by him has echoed earlier in the NAAC, and to address it, a new methodology was formulated in 2017 incorporating the concept of quantitative and qualitative metrics under each of the seven criteria for the preparation of self-study reports by universities. The qualitative part of the process is to be handled by a peer team which accounts for about 30 per cent of the weightage compared to 100 per cent earlier, thereby arithmetically reducing the discretion of the team.

Also Read: The way forward for NAAC

Given the situation, the data of accredited universities hosted on the NAAC website as on March 9 was compiled and analysed to observe what it reveals.

To explain the analysis in the context of the purpose of this article, a brief of the NAAC process of assessment is needed: Any higher educational institution desirous of getting accredited submits a self-study report (SSR) to the NAAC under predefined criteria/metrics. The report is evaluated through internal (data analysis) and external (peer team’s visit to the institution) factors, and the outcome of it is a report and a score (converted to a grade).

The grading pattern is D (not accredited) C, B, B+, B++, A, A+ and A++. A-level (A, A+, A++) scores are the most coveted by universities and are akin to a student scoring a minimum of 75 per cent (in the case of A) and 88 per cent (A++) in an examination. In addition, the universities are nomenclated by the NAAC as per the nature of its formation, i.e. Central Universities (CU), State Universities (SU), Deemed Universities (DU), State Private Universities (SPU) and others.

The universities with valid accreditation as on date are likely to have submitted the SSR in the format launched in 2017, thereby ensuring a common platform for comparison. The list of 259 universities with valid accreditation accounts for 28 per cent of universities (assuming that 900 are eligible) of which 27 per cent is DU, 27 per cent is SPU, 39 per cent SU, 6 per cent CU and only one Institution of National Importance. A total of 52 per cent of all institutions are accredited at the A level.

The interesting aspect of the analysis is that DU+SPU accounts for more than 50 per cent of the accredited institutions. Except for a few institutions under the DU which are public-funded, the rest are in private hands. Further, among the A-level institutions, DU institutions form the bulk with about 62 per cent in A++, 35 per cent in A+, and 26 per cent in A, indicating a skew.

In addition, few of the DU institutions have fared better than the Indian Institute of Science (A++, 3.67) in scores, and the University of Delhi (A+) in grades. As an A++ rating has high scores, a random check at the criteria level has also revealed that: one university in Andhra Pradesh and one in Tamil Nadu have scored maximum in curricular aspects. Curriculum development is a challenge to any university. These issues in combination have raised many eyebrows about the process’ strength, sensitivity and fairness.

The above analysis is not intended as an insinuation of universities in private hands. They substantially contribute to higher education. Doing well/improving cannot be held as a liability.

For further clarity, an in-depth analysis of the data and also its correlation with the thinking of the Executive Committee (EC), sub-committee of the EC, and even the appeals committee of the NAAC will be worthwhile.

Considering the enormous pressure to attract students, particularly by privately-managed universities, a good accreditation status will be an asset. In a bid to garner better grades, it is possible that efforts could be made to influence the system. After all, human vulnerability is a universal phenomenon and no system is beyond the breach. Even if a single university can influence the system, it mocks honest institutions and it is unfair to its students.

An effective way to curb this phenomenon is to follow the principle of total transparency. The minutes of all meetings of committees dealing with the A & A process must be made available prominently on the home page of the NAAC website. The member-secretary of the committees must be mandated to record the reasons behind every decision taken to avoid future confusion.

In addition, the portion of the meetings connected with accreditation issues must be live-streamed and recorded. This aspect is not new as the NAAC itself insists that universities provide video recording for peer team visits. Even the Supreme Court and Parliament live-stream proceedings.

If we don’t learn from history, it repeats itself.

(The writer is formerly advisor at NAAC, Bengaluru)