Time to disrupt the rating system

The National Education Policy-2020 envisages a vital role for accreditation, including recommending using outcomes of accreditation for regulation. Since the policy has been adopted by the government, the role of accreditation agencies, particularly the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), will be relevant at least for the next two decades in India.

Given the present situational dilemma that has engulfed the assessment process, the latest indications are that the ministry or UGC may play a proactive role in restoring confidence in the system. Even on earlier occasions, the UGC has stepped in to correct fault lines that have occurred: the independent position of chairman of NAAC was abolished and the UGC chairperson was made de-facto president of NAAC.

Also Read | Record 300+ govt colleges get NAAC grading in Karnataka

This decision was taken even though it was not in line with the conceptual belief that an accreditation body should be arm’s length away from the regulatory bodies/government and these bodies must create an inbuilt mechanism to act with agility as the situations demand (unfortunately not visible in the Indian context).

Apart from the above intervention, prior suggestions from the academia for multiple accreditation agencies (outside of the government) were put on hold for various reasons, including maintaining a general uniformity of the process administered by a single agency, primarily NAAC.

Given the context, a study of more than two decades of NAAC functioning flags the following macro-level issues:

The near-monopoly position enjoyed by NAAC weighed it down.

The outcome of the assessment process i.e., grading, has remained controversial from the beginning as it is a complex mix of arithmetic and peer-team judgement. (It is pertinent to note here that NAAC grades institutions and recognises institutions as Unit of Assessment)

Leaning towards secrecy and not transparency (includes all participants in the process)

Possible error in judgment in handling issues of concern

At times, a victim of shoot-the-messenger syndrome

The above observations must be viewed against the backdrop of the enormity of NAAC’s task, to accredit more than a thousand universities and 40,000 colleges with their own strengths, challenges, and importance (locally), in addition to covering a large geographical area.

Grades assigned to institutions also attract varied reactions and are not accepted by all as accreditations are not beyond doubt. Grouses about the government’s insistence on getting assessed, the urban-rural divide, locational disadvantages, financial constraints, and disinterest in some quarters all affect the process.

An accrediting agency, particularly in our country, operates with many factors that are beyond its control and are set high expectations to be met beyond its scope.

So, at this juncture, it is clear that a single-agency approach must be disrupted, and multiple agencies must be licensed to operate (may be between 10-15), as envisaged in the NEP, with all of India as their operational jurisdiction. The need is for well-defined light but tight guidelines (experience has shown that any attempt to tweak the present assessment process will fetch only short-lived success).

Having multiple agencies shifts the onus of maintaining credibility of the accreditation process to the individual agencies themselves and encourages institutions to approach agencies for its accreditation. If any unusual shifts are seen in the functioning of an agency, action may be initiated without affecting the entire process. The other issues which demand attention are:

Identifying limitations of the process using the experiences in the country and abroad, and use its outcomes carefully and judiciously (if not, its spin-off effect may impact students adversely).

Two-phase assessment model for universities for better achievements outcome.

Doing away with the present grading system and opting for a report-based system (with a suitable application of online discussion forum) and re-working the eligibility criteria for assessment.

Restricting physical peer-team visits and instead promoting a self-conducted ‘Academic and Administrative Audit’ by institutions.

The Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) to be functionally encouraged and may be made a statutory body in universities and part of evaluation in the assessment process

Colleges less than 10 years of existence may not necessarily opt for a national level accreditation by making available an alternative, local-level mechanism. This helps in cutting costs and time.

It may be wise to re-define NAAC’s mandate to embrace research and consultancy functions, support policy formulation, exit from conducting accreditation visits and put its wealth of experience to better use.

(The writer is former
adviser, NAAC, Bengaluru)