The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), in its executive council meeting on January 27, 2024, decided to introduce a binary categorisation of “accredited” or “not accredited” for higher educational institutions, departing from the letter grade system. Further, to encourage institutions to raise their bar, it said accredited institutions could go for higher levels of accreditation. Such institutions would be categorised into two groups under Maturity-Based Graded Accreditation (MBGA).
In this system, those meeting the expected requirements will be classified as ‘Institutions of National Excellence’ and put in levels 1 to 4. Those performing exceedingly well will be placed in level 5, indicating they are ‘Institutions of Global Excellence for Multi-Disciplinary Research and Education’. The binary accreditation system will be introduced in the next four months, and the MBGA is expected to be implemented by December 2024.
The move to streamline the NAAC’s accreditation system—hitherto mired in controversies and allegations of irregularities, favouritism and corruption—is welcome. Around the same time in 2023, many higher educational institutions levelled serious charges against the NAAC. To probe into the allegations, Bhushan Patwardhan, the agency’s executive council chairman, commissioned a committee headed by J P Singh Joreel, director of the Information and Library Network.
The committee’s findings lent credence to the doubts about the NAAC’s credibility. It said the agency’s IT system was compromised, besides revealing that almost 70 percent of experts from a pool of 4,000 assessors received no opportunity for site visits, whereas some got it multiple times. Another significant finding was that specific individuals without authority had full access to the NAAC’s internal system. Patwardhan, frustrated with the state of affairs, resigned on March 5, 2023, alleging his recommendations to rein in corruption were taken lightly by his superiors.
The last nail in the coffin was the auditor general of India’s report that chastised the NAAC on several irregularities. For 20 institutions, the points awarded to crucial indicators did not match the actual content of the report. Besides, some institutions were awarded high scores without citing justification. As a result, some got low and others extremely high grades.
We must scrutinise the new accreditation system in light of this dubious history. Binary accreditation is a simple concept that plainly says whether or not the institution is accredited. As the NAAC says, the aim is to encourage all institutions of higher learning to go for accreditation. According to reports, many institutions have not applied for accreditation because of the fear of obtaining poor results. There could only be two reasons behind this: one, they lack quality; two, they lack faith in the system. It is startling that in February last year, parliament was told 695 universities and 34,734 colleges did not have accreditation. Therefore, the objective to onboard all institutions is laudable, as accreditation will increase the visibility of institutions both within and outside the country.
The question that lingers, however, is regarding the process the NAAC intends to adopt. It says the metrics for both binary and MBGA systems “shall focus on processes, outcomes and impact across attributes of HEIs”, instead of mere input-centric. But what is the mechanism to ensure fairness? How unbiased and transparent will the process be? In the past, NAAC did not even have its own data centre, leading to doubts of changing information after submission. Has this been fixed?
Ignoring these issues and introducing changes is akin to pouring old wine into a new bottle. Good and mediocre institutions will vie for the top rating, with the new MBGA paving the way for corruption. In the old system, the struggle was to acquire an A++ grade; now institutions will eye level 5. Are we dropping the letter system only to replace it with one equally flawed?
A crucial change that the NAAC must implement is the conduct of the peer team’s visit during campus assessments. The agency is responsible for cultivating an atmosphere that fosters confidence among faculty, staff and students. While the evaluation process should maintain rigour, simplicity could enhance its effectiveness. In many institutions, fear grips individuals as peer team members adopt investigative roles, occasionally intimidating staff and students. The ambience, at times, is unashamedly unacademic.
On the other hand, institutions also fail to maintain the difference between being hospitable and obsequious. Currently, there is excessive spectacle associated with campus visits. The basic principle to be remembered is the visiting members are academics. Hence, they need to be treated as equals. Even a slight overdose of friendliness can backfire as the members either grow suspicious of the hosts’ motives or assume a false sense of superiority.
Finally, the NAAC must select experienced and knowledgeable academics as peer team members. On a recent college visit, a peer member enquired with faculty in the cultural studies department if they had obtained permission from the ministry of culture to run a programme. Although one could forgive this ignorance, treating it as comic relief to an otherwise arduous exercise, it is bound to erode credibility of the evaluation process. These deviations require attention. Otherwise, introducing new systems will be a simplistic remedy to a deep-rooted problem.
(Views are personal)
John J Kennedy | Professor and Dean, CHRIST (Deemed) University, Bengaluru