Around these days of the last month, I was coordinating a NAAC Peer Team visit to a college. It was a great learning experience and we were in a sense of awe seeing these tribal students from a remote geography, putting efforts to be educated, and demonstrating their enthusiasm towards playing their role for improving conditions of living in their surroundings. More so for the girl students. All these students showed high sense of belonging to the nation and displayed their firm commitment towards the cause of nation building through their positive engagement.
THINK SMALL ACT BIG | The teachers did not have publications in some quality journals, yet they were making huge contribution in educating these students, supporting them financially, and mentoring them to dream big. The college did not have excellent infrastructure, yet it displayed a sign of its competence to make best use of the available resources. Aren’t we aware that people living in scarcity outperform those people living with abundant resources. It is the determination and fire that translates well intentioned efforts into success. The college did not have patents, yet it was making efforts to revive a dying and extinct script. The innocence of teachers did not allow them to explore funding agencies willing to help them take up this noble task.
NAAC ACCREDITATION | I am sure there are many colleges of the nature described above that are aspiring to get good grades through National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Their grades would determine their fate for funding and further growth.
Around 40% of the degree awarding higher education institutions (more than 1200 in number) and around 22% of the degree colleges (more than 43000 in number) have been accredited so far. And with the kind of awareness and exposure that we are witnessing, every year more than 500 institutions are being initiated at different geographies of the country. The scale, scope, and speed demand lot of efforts on the part of the agency. It becomes more challenging when gaps are found between data submission and its subjective validation by the peer team. It is extremely difficult to assess and grade the institutions to the perfection of degree reflecting through the precision up to two decimal points. Whatever be the case, it gets talked at length even when there is subjectivity reflected through human intervention and their relative perception.
DR RADHAKRISHNAN COMMITTEE REPORT | In this light the recommendations of the Dr Radhakrishnan Committee Report on Reforms in NAAC Accreditation and Ranking, announced by the UGC Chairman, Prof Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, yesterday, are worth appreciating. More so for assuring effective implementation of NEP 2020.
Having visited hundreds of educational institutions of varied nature, public or private, state or central, deemed to be or autonomous, in different capacities, I feel that the whole process of grading the institutions on the basis of some generic parameters was not just. A teacher in college who is dedicated, sincere, and honest in delivery of course and mentoring students may not have good publication track yet he is contributing a great deal in inspiring students to learn and grow. Many times I have shared my concern for amending the system of grading the HEIs on two important aspects – One, minute detailing of each activity that an institution carries out (it results in focusing more on paper work, rather than the very intent); two, having generic parameters and reduced weightage of subjective assessment (even when I understand that individuals have their own biases). I can only say better late than never. In a way I am happy that the voices are getting heard and similar concerns are being raised and addressed through simple regulations.
BINARY SYSTEM | The committee has recommended that initially the institutions be put under two categories – Accredited, and Not Accredited status. The institutions that have not applied or have applied but the process is underway, be put under Awaiting Accreditation status. Apart from this, it is also recommended that there would be Maturity-Based Graded Accreditation (level 1 to 5) depending on the nature of institution.
These recommendations are going to be of greater help for most of the HEIs that do not enjoy financial autonomy, that are situated in remote locations and are imparting education to less-privileged strata of society, and that are focusing more on the first generation learners. We need not apply those parameters to judge and assess their level that are applicable to other institutions.
ONOD | At times it is irritating to keep receiving mails to fill similar data multiple times. The report makes an excellent recommendation for expansion of ONOD (One Nation One Data) platform for capturing, managing, and augmenting data used by different agencies like UGC, AISHE, AICTE, NIRF, and NAAC. With the use of technology interface it is not going to be difficult. If implemented effectively, it would prove to be a great initiative saving millions of man-hours of teachers who could engage in better value adding activities, rather than just feeding data.
Overall, I feel we are moving towards seamless system of grading that would help and facilitate gradual and sustainable growth of most of the HEIs. It would also reduce much of the burdensome compliance for these institutions and they would be able to contribute more through concentrating on providing quality education to the students, making them better citizens. After all that is the basic purpose of education.
Also Read:
Education as an event, or experience (2023)
6 thoughts on “IN DEFENCE OF BINARY SYSTEM – NAAC KNACK”
Excellently portrayed the reality and I could not agree more. I have to add three points: 1. There should be a rigorous program to train the IQAC members or faculty members of these small HEIs located remotely;
2. There seems to be blinded view of practical realities when there is insistence on curriculum/TLM and exam related metrics in cases where colleges are affiliated to fund starved government institutions; and3. NAAC charges heavily from the HEIs for accreditation but pays very poorly to assessors- pays for two or three days but assessor is made to spend 4-5 days and out of this poor assessor is left with only 69.68% of the amount earned due to income tax deductions. Hence either NAAC should decrease the amount charged from HEIs and/ or increase remuneration to assessors.
Lastly the government funded institutions and big city based HEIs should be given some handicap points and remotely located HEIs should be given bonus points.
Kindly let me know your views on it. Regards. Prof. Arvind Agrawal
One shoe can not fit all. An institution in one geography can not be evaluated on norms developed based on what exits in institutions in another geography. First there should be complete stratification of institutions. Then with in each starta institutions should be judged based on the progress made over time under the given conditions.
The objective should be to judge the progress made over the time under the challenges faced rather than the status at a given time.
I have maintained all through during last seven years that there should be at least three categories of HEIs for the accreditation purpose ie Class and classic; Strong and well placed; and New and emerging. The criteria would be a mixture of timeline, resources, quality, achievements, etc. Then only we can do justice to various HEIs in a vast country like ours. Putting all into one category and assessing defeats the very purpose and it creates ever widening gaps and heartburning. The binary formula may be re-looked in the light of multiple factors affecting and deciding the working of our HEIs.
Diversity is a characteristic feature of Indian society and the same extrapolates to the HEIs also. By and large any institution caters to the educational needs of the society in its immediate vicinity and we have huge diversity in the same. The structured information submitted on NAAC format becomes a limiting factor where an institution is not able to show its impact and hence the grades awarded may not be a true indicator of its systems and processes of delivering higher learning. Binary accreditation is a first level process to evaluate the working of an institution. Over time, some grading system has to be evolved so that an institution’s positioning with respect to its peers can be evaluated.
Despite all its shorcomings, NAAC is ideally suited for Indian conditions as its holistic, measurable and an accountable system of accreditation and grading.
Very well description on the present way of assessing the HEI. One important criterion to assess an institute should be their contribution to educating the local people with limited resources. Second the evaluation of progress in terms of money spent. Third not to give much impirtance to publications. The government aim should be to support the weaker institutions for all round development of the society.
NAAC accreditation process is must for maintaining quality education But this includes and involve Institutions of different categories, Government, Government aided and purely private colleges are there
I have gone through completely and having more than 9years of experience as an iQAC member
1.This revised NAAC accreditation process includes both qualitative and quantitative data.
1.Number of programs organized.
For this inviting resource persons in nearby colleges due money constraints and also number of programs just for the name sake.
It is not reaching the students to improve their quality
Self evaluation for grading then to fill the weightage not for improving the students standard or quality just to complete 50 programs for skill development
Not even one skill developed
OBE.
Total syllabus revised Many FDP arranged
Is it possible to see over night change
No out come that also ended up with unemployment.
After getting degrees UG ,OG or Ph D they are working in unskilled labour work.
No degree or degree no bar . Illetrates earning more money than degree holders. Unemployed youth ultimately to meet out their life challenges working in very low payed jobs.
Infrastructure development just for accreditation 5th year just three to five months before only NAAC work both staff and students. Some students frankly asking why staff members not coming and doing NAAC work
To get grade forcing to do MOOC and SwAYAM course , certificate course,internship everything whether worth or not making it compulsory and also in Tamilnadu in addition naan mudhslvan scheme last minute pressure for all. Too many cooks spoiled the food
Half boiled courses taught by sub standard teachers
Regarding funding UGC totally stopped
Only agency supported funds through out for research project minor and major, International conference for participating and organizing 100% grants.
Autonomous grants stopped totaly all of a sudden
But NAAC accreditation process
Patent, publication…
Infrastructure strengthening how to strengthen
Some colleges working hard to get sponsors, collecting money from staff and students in private colleges no qualified faculty and very poor salary working in late hours….and sponsoring compulsory for college development
Very poor colleges rural areas as you all mentioned how it will happen
Quantitative data
For all program with geo tag also there is a loop hole ..no programs organized simply submitting data only for grading
Research
Regarding research keep some parameters include PG with research department completed minimum years to be fixed
Otherwise management forcing the staff for grading ask them to publish in UGC care or standard journal.
Publication charge 50000 within 3months for book or paper
They are paying from salary
Ph. D fees is very high but institution has no facilities.
Especially science faculty paying outside for laboratory work
Then fund also stopped
Where is the research
Rural community students are taken to villages under UBA
Everything in faraway places
Students have to bear and overloading activities but with financial crisis
Few funding agencies DST, DBT
While scrutiny these poor colleagues proposal rejected because all basic infrastructure, faculty details very poor students and staff strength etc.
Only hig graded colleges improved what about rest
Endless discussion constrain and challenges to meet out grading
NAAC accreditation process to be changed
NAAC criteria wise to be changed
Binary system also I don’t think work well
Private colleges only working only few government colleges doing good.
Better before implementing will take sometime before implementing conduct meeting with faculty, stakeholder, management, funding agencies,industrialist, IIT,IIC, staff and students,alumni
Ministers especially higher education, other ministers foreign collaborators etc
Slow and steady decision making shout with good outcome.
Before implementing lots and lots of changes to be done