Exploring the Future of Accreditation under NEP 2020

The announcement and the gradual implementation of NEP 2020 marked a decisive step towards a significant journey to transform the Indian education system. One of the crucial components of the policy is strengthening the assessment and accreditation of higher educational institutes (HEIs) in India.

Besides, the inherent inconsistencies in the accreditation process and procedural delays and lags have been concerning issues. Therefore, the National Education Policy 2020 seeks to establish a transparent procedure and a robust outreach mechanism. This article will delve into how the accreditation process will align with NEP 2020 in the coming years.

The Present Accreditation, Approval, and Ranking System

The University Grants Commission (UGC) is a statutory organisation that is key to regulating the standards of examination, teaching, and research activities in higher educational institutes. Furthermore, it recognises universities in India and provides grants, helping to improve their academic infrastructure.

Additionally, Government of India-approved agencies carry out accreditation, assessment, approvals, and rankings of HEIs, which are as follows:

• NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) assesses and provides graded accreditation over 5-year block periods.
• NBA (National Board of Accreditation) is an autonomous organisation that provides binary accreditation of technical programs for either 6-year or 3-year block periods.
• The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) approves programs/courses in technical educational institutes annually.
• The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranks participating higher educational institutes on the basis of five broad sets of parameters.

Comparison Between the Present Accreditation System and NEP 2020 Vision

Present Accreditation System	NEP 2020
Score-based, Multiple Grade Accreditation	Binary Accreditation
Portal Self-Disclosure	Public Self-Disclosure
Single Accreditation Institutions	Approved Accreditation Institutions
One-Size-Fits-All Model	University-Type-Based Process
Input-Process-Limited-Outcome Approach	Majorly Outcome-Based Approach
Generic Policy Benefits as an Incentive for Accreditation	Empirical Policy Benefits to Motivate Accreditation

National Accreditation Council (As per NEP 2020)

NEP 2020 highlights that there is a crucial need to revamp the Indian education system’s regulatory system or mechanism. It proposes that distinct and independent bodies will regulate, accredit, fund, and set academic standards. Four independent verticals will work collaboratively within one umbrella institution, the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI).

The National Accreditation Council (NAC) is one of the four verticals of HECI that has been envisioned as the meta-accrediting organisation. It will supervise the overall activities related to accreditation activities and institutional and program ranking.

Fundamental Reforms Envisioned for India’s HEI Accreditation, Approval, and Ranking System as per NEP 2020

1. Strategic Transition:

The policy recommends the transition from NAAC’s existing 8-point grading system to an adapted Binary Accreditation System. This system will include the “Accredited” category and two subdivisions in the non-accredited category: “Awaiting Accreditation” and “Not Accredited.”

2. Continuous Progress:

Accredited institutes will focus on their continuous progress by improving their institutional performance and moving from level 1 to level 4 of institutions of National Excellence, striving to attain level 5 for multi-disciplinary research and education.

3. Choice-Based Ranking System:

The policy proposes a choice-based ranking system, helping stakeholders like students and industries make informed choices regarding courses, consultancy, and research.

4. Combine program accreditation and institutional accreditation, considering their interdependency, and evolve a composite assessment system.

Institutional assessment and programmatic domain assessments’ parameters and threshold level scores should be specified. Furthermore, the policy proposes the establishment of a comprehensive assessment system through a composite table for each HEI or infographic.

5. Supporting Underperforming Institutes

Institutes that do not meet the standards will not attain the ’’Accredited” status, so they must take mitigative steps to work on their respective problem areas. That is where accredited higher education institutes can mentor and provide necessary guidance to the ’Not Accredited institutes. In return, the former will receive adequate credit during the reaccreditation process.

6. Simplified Accreditation Process

The New Education Policy 2020 calls for a simplified accreditation process, especially for the first cycle accreditation process. This provision states that once an institute gets accreditation in the first cycle, the existing annual stipulations for re-approval will be eliminated, provided that the program’s scope does not change drastically.

On the other hand, the policy proposes that the undergraduate degree be either 3 or 4 years in duration, with multiple exit options within the stipulated period. The University Grants Commission has already taken the initiative to implement the provisions and highlighted six years to be a mandatory defined period for the institutional accreditation cycle. Nevertheless, flexibility in the system is critical to enable institutes to reaccredit at any point in time.

7. Include all HEIs and programs in the newly proposed accreditation and assessment system.

There is an emphasis on encouraging all HEIs, including IITs, to shift from an internal peer review system to an appropriate national accreditation system.

8. Categorisation of HEIs (Based on orientation/vision and legacy/heritage)

The policy emphasises the need to move away from the one-size-fits-all model when it comes to classifying HEIs. It posits the heterogeneity of institutes and urges their categorisation in terms of orientation/vision and legacy/heritage. The recommended categories of HEIs are as follows:

Criteria

• Orientation and Vision
• Heritage and Legacy

Suggested Category of HEIs

• Multi-disciplinary Education and Research-Intensive
• Teaching-Intensive
• Specialised Streams
• Vocational and Skill-Intensive
• Community Engagement & Service
• Rural & Remote location
• Old and Established
• New and Upcoming

9. Systematic Accreditation Across HEI’s Different Attributes

The accreditation bodies must adhere to a systematic process and consider specific procedures, outcomes, and impact across HEI’s different attributes, including:

• Curriculum
• Faculty Resources
• Learning and Teaching
• Research and Innovation
• Co-curricular and Extra-Curricular Activities
• Community Engagement
• Green Initiatives
• Governance and Administration
• Infrastructure Development
• Financial Resources and Management

10. Create a Unified Elicitation Tool

One of the key recommendations of the policy is to create a ‘’Unified Elicitation Tool” to collate a data superset from HEIs for approval, ranking, and accreditation. The tool should have a well-prepared design or framework for appropriate cross-checking, helping to check the data's authenticity.

At the same time, the policy suggests the incorporation of technological solutions like accreditation data management software. Consequently, it will replace the manually intensive processes and enhance credibility and transparency.

11. Upgraded One Nation One Data Platform

A government-owned, cloud-enabled technology should be central to the ’’one nation one data’’ platform, providing adequate facilities such as:

• Appropriate access control and security mechanisms
• Uploading harmonised data after quality checks into a single format
• HEIs will have single-point data entry with a facility for yearly updates.
• Robust and flexible data management mechanism with adequate business logic for accreditation, approval, and scoring/ranking.
• Collateral data and stakeholder crowdsourcing management to verify trust-enhancement measures and input data verification.
• Compatibility with the national digital framework for good governance (e.g., NDEAR, InDEA 2.0, and GATISHAKTI), the future digital campus of HEIs (e.g., SAMARTH, Swayam 2.0), as well as the AISHE Portal, Digilocker, and Academic Bank of Credits (ABC).
• APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) to integrate data from multiple sources into a centralised database.

12. Avoid Micromanagement

Accreditation bodies must trust institutions throughout the process while enforcing penalties in case of wrong submissions. At the same time, they must ensure that HEIs follow public disclosure of relevant data, thereby increasing the process's credibility.

Additionally, accrediting agencies must avoid micromanagement of assessment and view HEIs as capable organisations that can present their data and claims for public viewing.

13. Outreach Mechanism

A top priority is beginning an outreach mechanism that would include well-thought-out mechanisms to urge all HEIs to join the accreditation and ranking process.