Accreditation Reboot and HEI Worries

What will happen to the work we have done as NAAC is revising it's guidelines? This is a standard question from many quarters each time the assessment norms for accreditation are revised. Though the worry is understandable and valid to an extent, it raises concerns of another kind regarding the relationship between accreditation parameters, the institutional readiness and their relevance. The outcome of each such revision, in any system, may be warranted by many causes. It may be a periodic revision which all systems need to undergo time to time. It may also be the outcome of a revision warranted by the systemic changes. The revision may also be the result of corrective measures necessitated by the need to weed out complacency or corruption. As always, all changes may not be exclusively changes for the better! 

There has always been the question of what is it that an HEI leader has to do when charged with the responsibility of preparing it for periodic assessments. Ready the institution for assessment and accreditation by preparing a set of documents for the NAAC visit is one option. (This is not to mean that the sole focus of an HEI leader is to prepare the institution for accreditation. There are any number of researches/works which are wary of the Ranking Industry and warn us of the perils of a system which is absolutely rating/ranking centered). The documents here could be copies without originals, in the sense that nothing serious with effective outcome may have happened but all the required documents will be in place. Or one can rather slowly develop a set of practices, fuelled by a comprehensive vision. If what the institution has done is what is mentioned later, then the revisions of guidelines for accreditation will have only minimal impact on the stakeholders. The institution will be vibrant enough to absorb the shocks of such a revision of standards as what the HEI has been doing has contributed vitally for the growth of it. Accreditation or no accreditation, the practices and policies put in place could have helped the institution deliver at multiple fronts, or may be beginning to bear fruits slowly. For those who are part of such HEIs, the revision will be a minor irritant. A little upsetting, but still worth shrugging off. 

The revised manual of National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is months off and what we have is just the directions/ recommendations of the committee concerned. But still what can be done meanwhile is to have a thorough look at the broad directions indicated by the document available and to see how what has been done by the HEI can fit in to the new situation. Some of those may not fit like a T, but still it may be fit to be the top horizontal or the bottom vertical bars of the T! Some of the work done may have to be repurposed too. Some reimagined and some kept away because it may not work as per the new accreditation reality. But take consolation in the fact that all the academic and curricular work put in, if genuine, will have contributed to the professional growth of the institution already, and of the individuals who were involved too. Every act of an HEI is not done with an eye on rating or ranking. It should never be. 

Let us visit one of the 'possible Ifs' of the concerned faculty regarding the accreditation guidelines overhaul. What if the MoU part is missing in the revised guidelines? I am reminded of a Principal who enquired if their institution can have an MoU with retrospective benefits. We have stamp papers with previous year's date, he said. Another HEI leader rang me up one morning and asked if we could collaborate. I will come with the documents in the afternoon, he said! Leaving such categories behind, let us ponder about the healthy scenario. Even if the MoU requirement is taken out of the accreditation equation, the institution will never 'suffer', had the MoUs been signed and operated in right earnest. The takeaways of the collaboration would have positively impacted both the partners of the deal and it would also have branched off in more creative directions, further yielding results not just in the areas marked for collaboration, but also in the collateral fields. If this is what the MoUs have done for the institution, there's nothing to grief about if the revised guidelines have given it a slip. On the other hand, a fast cooked MoU which has been made to meet the functional status through inflated reports and arranged pics will be of no use and then the 'effort' put into the cook too will be wasted!

Similar is the case whether it is value added courses or best practices (Did it add value? Are the institutions known for their best practices?). The measures and practices with roots running deep, nourished by the ecosystem which values and waters it, will stand by the institution and will contribute to its health in many guises and forms. The HEIs can carry on without freezing their relevant curricular and co-curricular works for the next four months, waiting for new guidelines. Revisits of the parameters and processes of assessment will continue to evolve and the HEIs have to possess mechanisms to grow up to those changes. So that I wouldn't sound too much on the revisions' side, I have to add that certain elements, acts, events which were done only in the interests of serving the needs of accreditation, even when we were unsure of the relevance, these will certainly have to be thrown away. We will sure feel bad too while we have to do so thinking of the time and resources invested. Let us learn lessons even while taking it in our stride!

 Babu. P. K. Ph D