National
Policy on Education 1986 provided the provision for establishment
of National Accreditation body for the maintenance of quality
in Higher and Technical Education. UGC and AICTE Act provides
for the establishment of Accreditation bodies.
Accordingly bodies like NAAC and NBA have been established
by UGC and AICTE respectively. There has been a very fast
growth and development in the expansion of private education.
Over the last, almost 20 years the impacts of accreditation
process have been very marginal. This calls for a serious
review of the provisions made so far. One of the foremost
requirement of International Accreditation bodies has been
that quality assurance must involve all stakeholders and
it should not vest with the agencies, which control higher
education. As a result, a conglomerate of 29 bodies called
ABET (USA), Engineering Council (U.K.) are involved in accreditation
as a third party evaluators of quality. In the new emerging
scenario, if Indian higher education has to get acceptability
of the International community, with provisions of equivalence
and mobility of professionals across borders, a third party
evaluation model must be put in place with participation
of all stakeholders of higher education. It is estimated
that hardly 10 – 15% of the total Higher and Technical
Education System have gone through the Accreditation process
because of inadequate infrastructure facility and possibly
because of inadequate participation of all the stakeholders
and the sheer number of colleges and universities included.
EPSI Preliminary Recommendations
| i) |
Since
the Higher Education has to compete and fulfill the
needs of quality education and economic sectors competitively,
it is our considered opinion that the government facilitate
or provide enabling provisions for the establishment
of Independent Accreditation Agencies which is expanded
to have regional centres to sustain the demand and
reach, which are also accepted
by industry. Objective should not be to shut down
or close down the non-performing institutions but
to help them to upgrade standards and facilitate them.
|
| |
|
| ii) |
It is felt that
one institution like NAAC may not be able to bear
the burden of the accreditation process. Independent
Accreditation Agencies with regional centres would
be capable to offer services with defined benchmark
of quality and performance. |
| |
|
| iii) |
A well laid
out imperatives and benchmark need to be defined and
tangible benefits of accreditation must be put in
place. |
| |
|
| iv) |
The Accreditation
Agencies should be a conglomerate of government, industry,
academia, society etc. (all stakeholders of the education)
that proves the credentials of the agency.
|
| |
|
| v) |
There should
be further provisions to Accreditation even for the
Accrediting Agencies. |
| |
|
| vi) |
The criteria
and norms created by these Independent (proposed)
Accreditation bodies should necessarily meet the characterized
minimum and maximum level/standard. |
| |
|
| vii) |
The accreditation
should be a TWO level rating both on Institutional
accreditation and programme accreditation. |
| |
|
| viii) |
The process and
procedure of Accreditation should be made simple and
it should be on a continuous basis. |
| |
|
| ix) |
Autonomy with
self – regulation is important for proper growth
of the institution |
| |
|
| x) |
The institution,
which excels in obtaining Accreditation, should be
encouraged to levy higher tuition fees from those
who can afford to pay, compared to those who do not
receive Accreditation. This would not mean to eliminate
the responsibility of all other Higher education Institutions
from providing adequate facilities for loans and scholarships
as and when needed. |
| |
|
| xi) |
All institutes
of higher learning must make public the acceptability
of their courses and degrees. (i.e. the status, recognition
and acceptability of their courses by other institutions)
|
| |
|
| xii) |
Any misrepresentation
of facts to the general public should make the institute
and its promoters, directors and staff liable for
civil prosecution. |
| |
|
| xiii) |
One of Government’s
biggest concerns in education seems to be a feeling
that the private sector would cheat the public if
there were no government regulation of the education
sector and “profiteering” if they are
allowed autonomy. The accreditation process would
ensure the necessary infrastructure and quality needed
for offering education. There are bodies formed in
other facets of economy, which have become the catalyst
of Quality assurance and development with the introduction
of Quality assurance bodies like ISO, ISI etc. and
rating agencies like CRISIL and ICRA respectively. |
| |
|
| xiv) |
It shall be
mandatory to publicise/ make public the accreditation
report for the informed choice to the students and
other stakeholders in education. Benefit: An Educational
Accreditation and Grading/rating Agency for both non-professional
and professional education would help the students
and the employers in making informed choices about
the quality of education and its programmes in each
institution.
It will be beneficial for all universities and educational
institutions (both public and private) to get themselves
accredited by an Educational- Accrediting Agency.
This will ensure that all fly-by-night operators will
have no chance to cheat the public as well as the
students and this will also put pressure on the public
universities and force them to work towards all-round
improvement. This will also help international universities
to develop confidence in the Indian education system
and also Indian universities going abroad. |
