NEW DELHI: Proposing a complete overhauling of the current system, the Overarching Committee on assessment and accreditation of higher education institutions (HEIs), suggested a more simplified “Accredited, Awaiting Accreditation and Not Accredited” system, instead of the present 8-point grading system of National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
Other proposals include reducing the periodicity for re-accreditation to three years and categorising HEIs into two groups based on orientation and vision, and heritage and legacy. NAAC’s accreditation process has been under the scanner recently over serious allegations against the functioning of the Council and malpractices in the grading process.
The ministry of education in November 2022 constituted the committee headed by Dr K Radhakrishnan, chairperson, the Standing Committee of IIT Council.
The draft report “Transformative Reforms for Strengthening Periodic Assessment and Accreditation of All Higher Educational Institutions in India” was placed in public domain by the ministry on Friday, which suggested that designing a ‘Unified Elicitation Tool’ to collect the superset of data from HEIs for the varied purposes (of approval, accreditation, scoring/ranking) with single point data entry by HEIs with provision for yearly updates for the accreditation/ assessment and rankings of the HEIs. It also suggested “significant penalty for wrong submissions” and “ensure public disclosure of relevant data by HEIs, to enhance the overall process-credibility.”
The committee observed that under the current system of accreditation, “The low level of willingness of HEIs to volunteer for this process continues to be a cause of concern,” as it also added that the plurality of all-encompassing information (much of which may not be completely applicable for diverse categories of HEIs), as well as the cumbersome and tiresome process “are concerns on subjectivity in the processes, and inconsistencies between assessment by different agencies.”
The committee stated that the suggested reforms are proposed with a strategic intent i.e.: “Consistent with the Vision of NEP 2020, adopt, right away, a simple, trust-based, credible, objective and rationalised system for approval, accreditation and ranking of HEIs…” While suggesting inclusion of all HEIs and every programme in the newly proposed assessment and accreditation system, given the heterogeneity of HEIs in the country, report proposed “categorise them based on their orientation/ vision and heritage/ legacy, and then seek information from the HEIs that are appropriate to their category (rather than a one-size-fits-all model in vogue currently).”
Categorising based on orientation and vision, HEIs are to be classified as multi-disciplinary education and research intensive, research intensive, teaching intensive, specialised streams, vocational and skill intensive, and community engagement and service.
Moreover, old and established institutions are to be placed under heritage criteria and new and upcoming HEIs as legacy institutions. Suggesting shifting out of the current input centric process during accreditation, the committee suggested “Accredit with due consideration for Inputs, Processes, Outcomes and Impact across different attributes of HEI.”
Picking up from the National Education Policy 2020’s Binary Accreditation (Accredited and Not Accredited), the committee suggested Adapted Binary Accreditation where institutions will be categorised as “Accredited,” “Awaiting Accreditation (on the threshold for Accreditation),” and “Not Accredited (far below the standards for accreditation).”
Other proposals include reducing the periodicity for re-accreditation to three years and categorising HEIs into two groups based on orientation and vision, and heritage and legacy. NAAC’s accreditation process has been under the scanner recently over serious allegations against the functioning of the Council and malpractices in the grading process.
The ministry of education in November 2022 constituted the committee headed by Dr K Radhakrishnan, chairperson, the Standing Committee of IIT Council.
The draft report “Transformative Reforms for Strengthening Periodic Assessment and Accreditation of All Higher Educational Institutions in India” was placed in public domain by the ministry on Friday, which suggested that designing a ‘Unified Elicitation Tool’ to collect the superset of data from HEIs for the varied purposes (of approval, accreditation, scoring/ranking) with single point data entry by HEIs with provision for yearly updates for the accreditation/ assessment and rankings of the HEIs. It also suggested “significant penalty for wrong submissions” and “ensure public disclosure of relevant data by HEIs, to enhance the overall process-credibility.”
The committee observed that under the current system of accreditation, “The low level of willingness of HEIs to volunteer for this process continues to be a cause of concern,” as it also added that the plurality of all-encompassing information (much of which may not be completely applicable for diverse categories of HEIs), as well as the cumbersome and tiresome process “are concerns on subjectivity in the processes, and inconsistencies between assessment by different agencies.”
The committee stated that the suggested reforms are proposed with a strategic intent i.e.: “Consistent with the Vision of NEP 2020, adopt, right away, a simple, trust-based, credible, objective and rationalised system for approval, accreditation and ranking of HEIs…” While suggesting inclusion of all HEIs and every programme in the newly proposed assessment and accreditation system, given the heterogeneity of HEIs in the country, report proposed “categorise them based on their orientation/ vision and heritage/ legacy, and then seek information from the HEIs that are appropriate to their category (rather than a one-size-fits-all model in vogue currently).”
Categorising based on orientation and vision, HEIs are to be classified as multi-disciplinary education and research intensive, research intensive, teaching intensive, specialised streams, vocational and skill intensive, and community engagement and service.
Moreover, old and established institutions are to be placed under heritage criteria and new and upcoming HEIs as legacy institutions. Suggesting shifting out of the current input centric process during accreditation, the committee suggested “Accredit with due consideration for Inputs, Processes, Outcomes and Impact across different attributes of HEI.”
Picking up from the National Education Policy 2020’s Binary Accreditation (Accredited and Not Accredited), the committee suggested Adapted Binary Accreditation where institutions will be categorised as “Accredited,” “Awaiting Accreditation (on the threshold for Accreditation),” and “Not Accredited (far below the standards for accreditation).”
