Reflections on the NAAC Whitepaper

Following are compilation of notes I made while reading ‘Re-imagining Assessment and Accreditation in Higher Education in India’ (Draft 44, May 31,2022).?In the spirit of Montaigne’s essays, the format is reflective and exploratory.

If you are new here, I am Dr Hardik Vachharajani. I am a higher education leader and professor with keen interest in quality and innovation.

It is a massive attempt to make radical changes (like the one proposed) to assessment and accreditation mechanism in India where diverse educational models co-exist and serve even more diverse stakeholders.?In last seven years, I have closely worked with Higher Education Threshold Standards set by Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Authority (TEQSA) in Australia and I am fully appreciative of the complexities in Indian higher system compared to that of Australia.?

The idea of aligning assessment and accreditation to National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is a step in the right direction.?This will hopefully create higher education system that is alighted to overall education system of the country and achieves the common goals.

Emphasis on trans-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary is in line with global education practices.?Paper hardly provides any pathway on how this will be achieved in India where higher education operates in multiple models financially (state, centre and private).

Educatedness as shared learning outcome is a good idea! I am not sure how at the assessment and accreditation agency level this can be implemented or assessed.

I am surprised to see how while talking about higher education system there is such limited emphasis put on technical education!?Who will regular technical education? Technical education will play key role in making India a ‘skilled nation’ and create citizens who will not only seek jobs but will create self-employment in areas of the nation where otherwise employment opportunities are limited.

Conflict of understanding on the relationship between employability and higher education is evident in the whitepaper.?There are several instances where the focus is put on creating citizens who create employment for others and at the same time focus on employability being at the centre of in higher education is loathed.

After 75 years of independence it is still evident from the whitepaper that the relationship between regulator and private higher education is not smooth.?Private higher education is still viewed with scepticism.?Is this required??We see increasing number of students pursuing higher education in private sector, government approving (and supporting) green field corporate universities and we sometimes see investments being sought in higher education.?I am confused!

Focus on higher-order cognition is appreciable.?Higher education should target higher order learning needs.?My initial note had a question mark on how this will be achieved??I can see in the latest draft (version 45) available on the NAAC website that there is a roadmap.

There is a proposal to convert the accreditation to binary.?I believe this is more to make sure that all institutes follow threshold standards.?This structure aligns with accreditation systems in number of countries around the world.?

There is proposal to grade units / programs.?While trying to replace grading race between institutes in current format will this start another race where institutes will say that we have x number of units / programs graded in our university under certain category??Accreditations and rankings are used as marketing tools to attract (better) students and what will be the overall impact of this is to be seen.

Teaching University (TU) v/s Research University (RU) discussion in whitepaper is fascinating.?This is a topic close to my heart as an academic leader.?Countries around the world have been discussing and deliberating on this for some time.?In number of small developed countries (like in Australia) they seem to have made up their mind that to be considered and stay as a “university” institute must be involved in research.?Whitepaper mentions that this categorisation does not imply higher or lower status.?Although perceptions of students, parents, employers and global rankings agencies may treat these two categories differently and universities may be “trapped” in the category.??

Whitepaper says that research evaluation is relevant only for those HEIs that offer PhD programs (research HEI so I assume RUs).?Paper also says that it would be unreasonable to expect the faculty (of non-research institutes) to have PhDs, let alone publish papers.?Seriously??Won’t this create a hierarchy within institutes and make some institutes more elite and aspirational over others??

Technology has served India really well in solving number of “wicked problems” and technology can do the same for data for assessment.

Changes in criteria are more of realignment of criteria to meet the revised objectives and will serve the purpose well.?Learning outcome centred assessments is what the system needs and will align us to the global standards.

Idea of having multiple accreditation agencies that are trained and regulated by NAAC is very interesting.?Is there any role for large well reputed existing certification bodies in this??If individuals can be used for this service will there be any role for private organisations??This is again a radical idea.???

#highereducation #highered #assessment #quality #leadershipdevelopment