<p>The recent announcement by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) to express the outcome of the assessment exercise in a binary form is a welcome step but needs abundant caution in its implementation. As per newspaper reports, two terms will be used for binary accreditation, i.e., accreditation or yet to acquire the same. The term ‘yet to acquire’ possibly needs a clear definition.</p>.<p>At this juncture, it is important to understand the evolution of the NAAC’s assessment process over the last two decades, particularly the aspects of "grading." In a nutshell, NAAC's vision is to make quality assurance an integral part of the operation of higher education institutions and to mandate that they be graded.</p>.<p>Keeping in view the vision and mandate of NAAC, the initial phase of the process of assessment was envisaged as a binary process, i.e., accredited or non-accredited. One or two institutions were graded accordingly, but the reactions from the field were that with binary accreditation, all institutions submitting for accreditation will get bunched as accredited (on meeting the prescribed requirements) and no finer distinction will be available; well-performing institutions will not get recognition for their efforts and have little incentive to perform well. This observation gained credence and resulted in the system of grading at various levels. The idea was that grading is a by-product of identifying the quality levels of an institution.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/musings-of-a-college-waiting-for-the-naac-to-visit-1171185.html" target="_blank">Musings of a college waiting for the NAAC to visit</a></strong></p>.<p>As many institutions got accredited, dissatisfaction levels rose among institutions pertaining to grading. The basic reasoning was that the public perception of an institution rated higher is less than that of one rated lower in a geographical area. In addition, slowly but steadily, the allegation of malpractice surfaced. These issues were addressed by bringing in changes to the manual and the scoring and grading structure of the assessment process in April 2007. </p>.<p>Furthermore, the accreditation process has grown in importance as a result of the expanded scope of accreditation obtained by former MHRD, UGC, and state education departments, as well as the grade of the institutions becoming linked to regulatory issues (for example, prerequisite for seat enhancement, permanent affiliation to colleges, operational flexibility to universities, funding, autonomy, and so on). Therefore, what was originally a reflective exercise for institutions moved towards one of precise quality measurement, which, however, remained elusive and distorted the very purpose of the process. The same issues also caused enough turbulence among institutions to mandate a revision in the structure of the manual, the scoring pattern, digitisation of the process, limiting the role of the peer team, etc. in July 2017. </p>.<p>Possibly, binary accreditation is also a continuum in the process of addressing the issues mentioned above and bringing further credibility to the process. The National Education Policy 2020 also calls for moving over to a binary accreditation mechanism within a decade.</p>.<p>It is pertinent to note that the outcome of the accreditation process, apart from the issues stated above, involves other factors like the structure and relevance of the content of the manual/instrument used to prepare the self-study report, the sensitivity of the instrument, the arithmetic of the process, the peer team training and expertise, the institution’s processes, the peer team training and expertise, the institutions' preparedness and stage of maturity, the leadership competency, management views and finances, the internal dynamics of process deployment, the peer-team report, the functioning of IQAC, and the usage of the results of the process, etc.</p>.<p>So, it is imperative that before the switchover to the binary accreditation process is undertaken, a 360-degree analysis of all the aspects involved in the assessment process be undertaken. It is worthwhile to conduct an impact analysis at the ground level countrywide by a third party to understand and identify the qualitative changes that the assessment process has brought about in the institutions so far. It helps in better decision-making supported by data than through gut feeling or the expertise of committees, although the exercise may take time. Past experiences have shown that experts with a good profile are available in plenty, but acquiring expertise in a particular domain is a long and difficult journey, even though the process may appear simple.</p>.<p>A newspaper reported that "the Great Wall of China was built to protect China from invaders, but China was invaded three times not by wall-break or penetration but by sneaking in by bribing the guards." This human greed is universal and is to be tackled by all organisations by connecting the ugly dots with action. Otherwise, history, as they say, may repeat itself.</p>.<p>Above all, the new change envisaged needs to be addressed (which was missed earlier) so that the primary stakeholder in the process, the student, is not in any way disadvantaged by the exercise, i.e., a bright student from a poorly graded college loses opportunities against an average student from a better graded college due to policy interventions, employment opportunity norms, the location of the institution, etc., as she/he has very little control over the matter.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former adviser, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, (NAAC), Bengaluru)</em></p>
<p>The recent announcement by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) to express the outcome of the assessment exercise in a binary form is a welcome step but needs abundant caution in its implementation. As per newspaper reports, two terms will be used for binary accreditation, i.e., accreditation or yet to acquire the same. The term ‘yet to acquire’ possibly needs a clear definition.</p>.<p>At this juncture, it is important to understand the evolution of the NAAC’s assessment process over the last two decades, particularly the aspects of "grading." In a nutshell, NAAC's vision is to make quality assurance an integral part of the operation of higher education institutions and to mandate that they be graded.</p>.<p>Keeping in view the vision and mandate of NAAC, the initial phase of the process of assessment was envisaged as a binary process, i.e., accredited or non-accredited. One or two institutions were graded accordingly, but the reactions from the field were that with binary accreditation, all institutions submitting for accreditation will get bunched as accredited (on meeting the prescribed requirements) and no finer distinction will be available; well-performing institutions will not get recognition for their efforts and have little incentive to perform well. This observation gained credence and resulted in the system of grading at various levels. The idea was that grading is a by-product of identifying the quality levels of an institution.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/panorama/musings-of-a-college-waiting-for-the-naac-to-visit-1171185.html" target="_blank">Musings of a college waiting for the NAAC to visit</a></strong></p>.<p>As many institutions got accredited, dissatisfaction levels rose among institutions pertaining to grading. The basic reasoning was that the public perception of an institution rated higher is less than that of one rated lower in a geographical area. In addition, slowly but steadily, the allegation of malpractice surfaced. These issues were addressed by bringing in changes to the manual and the scoring and grading structure of the assessment process in April 2007. </p>.<p>Furthermore, the accreditation process has grown in importance as a result of the expanded scope of accreditation obtained by former MHRD, UGC, and state education departments, as well as the grade of the institutions becoming linked to regulatory issues (for example, prerequisite for seat enhancement, permanent affiliation to colleges, operational flexibility to universities, funding, autonomy, and so on). Therefore, what was originally a reflective exercise for institutions moved towards one of precise quality measurement, which, however, remained elusive and distorted the very purpose of the process. The same issues also caused enough turbulence among institutions to mandate a revision in the structure of the manual, the scoring pattern, digitisation of the process, limiting the role of the peer team, etc. in July 2017. </p>.<p>Possibly, binary accreditation is also a continuum in the process of addressing the issues mentioned above and bringing further credibility to the process. The National Education Policy 2020 also calls for moving over to a binary accreditation mechanism within a decade.</p>.<p>It is pertinent to note that the outcome of the accreditation process, apart from the issues stated above, involves other factors like the structure and relevance of the content of the manual/instrument used to prepare the self-study report, the sensitivity of the instrument, the arithmetic of the process, the peer team training and expertise, the institution’s processes, the peer team training and expertise, the institutions' preparedness and stage of maturity, the leadership competency, management views and finances, the internal dynamics of process deployment, the peer-team report, the functioning of IQAC, and the usage of the results of the process, etc.</p>.<p>So, it is imperative that before the switchover to the binary accreditation process is undertaken, a 360-degree analysis of all the aspects involved in the assessment process be undertaken. It is worthwhile to conduct an impact analysis at the ground level countrywide by a third party to understand and identify the qualitative changes that the assessment process has brought about in the institutions so far. It helps in better decision-making supported by data than through gut feeling or the expertise of committees, although the exercise may take time. Past experiences have shown that experts with a good profile are available in plenty, but acquiring expertise in a particular domain is a long and difficult journey, even though the process may appear simple.</p>.<p>A newspaper reported that "the Great Wall of China was built to protect China from invaders, but China was invaded three times not by wall-break or penetration but by sneaking in by bribing the guards." This human greed is universal and is to be tackled by all organisations by connecting the ugly dots with action. Otherwise, history, as they say, may repeat itself.</p>.<p>Above all, the new change envisaged needs to be addressed (which was missed earlier) so that the primary stakeholder in the process, the student, is not in any way disadvantaged by the exercise, i.e., a bright student from a poorly graded college loses opportunities against an average student from a better graded college due to policy interventions, employment opportunity norms, the location of the institution, etc., as she/he has very little control over the matter.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former adviser, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, (NAAC), Bengaluru)</em></p>