People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No. 38
September 23, 2012
|
Vol. XXXVI
No. 38 September 23, 2012 |
MANDATORY ACCREDITATION Sheikh Saidul Haque THE government has reintroduced
in parliament the National Accreditation Regulatory
Authority Bill 2012, which was
first introduced in Lok Sabha on May 3, 2010. The earlier
bill was referred to
the standing committee which submitted its report on August
12, 2011, with its recommendations
and suggestions. The latest bill seeks to make it mandatory
for every
educational institution and every programme conducted by it
to get accredited by
an accreditation agency in order to certify academic
quality. So far, the
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) has
been assessing and
accrediting the institutions of higher learning in the
country, except those of
legal and medical education. The NAAC primarily assesses the
quality of
institutions of higher education that volunteer for the
process, through an
internationally accepted methodology. It is the opinion of
the government that
as this assessment is voluntary, less than one-fifth of the
colleges and less
than one-third of the universities have obtained
accreditation. It is thus that
the government brought the CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE One of the objections
coming from many quarters is that the bill is against the
spirit of the federal
structure, as enshrined in the constitution. The criticism
is that the bill
negates entry 44 of the union list in the seventh schedule
of the constitution,
which reads thus: “incorporation, regulation and winding up
of corporations,
whether trading or not, with object not confined to one
state, but not
including universities.” At the time of the 42nd amendment
to the constitution
in 1976, this entry was not amended. While the Ministry of
Human Resources
Development (MHRD) has sought to argue that entry 25 of the
concurrent list
gives that power to the centre, regulation of universities
is categorically
excluded from the union list itself. That is why some
experts say the union government
cannot consider this bill under entry 25 of the concurrent
list. According to
them, entry 32 of the state list only empowers a state
government to introduce a
bill on incorporation, regulation and winding up of
universities. Four former chief justices
of India, namely Justices K N Singh, M M Punchhi, R C Lahoti
and A S Anand, have
also opined that the parliament cannot legislate for state
universities and that
only states can make laws for universities. Thus one may say that
before framing the provisions of such an important bill, the
government must have
more consultations with various stakeholders --- state
governments, teachers’
organisations, UGC, Bar Council of India, Medical Council of
India and noted
academicians. As the passage of the bill is still pending,
it is better to send
it to a select committee of both houses. As for the bill’s thrust
about accreditation of all institutions including those of
medical and legal
education, objections have come from some noted legal and
medical experts, and
also from medical and legal organisations. So their points
of view need to be
given due consideration, given the specialised nature of
these subjects. The
standing committee, after considering the bill, recommended
that specific
provisions for such institutions must be included in the
bill in order to avoid
any possible overlapping or conflict of interest with other
institutions to be set
up under the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Law. CONTRADICTIONS GALORE IN THE BILLS There are a number of
contradictions in the provisions of the bill. As per a
provision of the bill,
an accreditation agency has to meet two conditions: 1) It
must be a non-profit
organisation registered as a company under Section of 25 of
the Company Act, a
society or trust, and 2) It must be controlled by the
central or a state government.
Now, as soon as we talk of a non-profit organisation like a
society or a trust,
an NGO registered under the Company Act may well opt in
future to become an
accreditation agency. Another point of contradiction is that
the bill says the agency
would be independent but also says that it would be
controlled by the centre or
a state government. How is it possible? Of course, a
government agency must be
there but it must act without government interference. There
should also be
some institutional mechanism to regulate an accreditation
agency. At the same
time, a grievance redressal mechanism needs to be put in
place in order to
ensure transparency. Needless to say, the procedure to grant
a certificate of
registration to an accreditation agency must be made more
transparent. Here is yet another instance
of contradiction in the bill: it is not at all clear from
the bill whether it
is mandatory for an educational institution to accept the
accreditation given
by an accreditation agency. As the bill goes, there is scope
for an educational
institution to apply to multiple agencies and accept only
the one that gives it
the highest rating. Clause 31(1) tells
that an institution or a person may appeal to the Clause 29(1) (d)
tells that accreditation agencies have to assist the
institutions in enhancing
their academic quality and give a quality rating. Clause 37
says that an agency
is liable to penalty in case it fails to perform its duties.
These two
provisions may lead to a conflict of interest since
downgrading an institution
would be an admission of failure on the part of the
accreditation agency. It is
clear that agencies would not like to downgrade any
institution. The bill proposes
penalty for any person who contravenes the provision of this
law or who resists
or obstructs any officer of the Another question is about
the violations of this act. Why is there the provision of
regarding a violation
as a criminal offence, one for which draconian punishment of
imprisonment has
been prescribed? If it is so, will anyone come forward to
lead an institution
as its vice chancellor or director? Clause 49 of the bill
gives power to the central government to exempt any class of
institution from
mandatory accreditation. The question is: Why this power to
the central government?
And why an exemption? Or, exemption for whom? May not this
lead to misuse or
corruption or favouritism? In fact, by taking advantage of
this clause the central
government would like to give exemption to foreign education
providers or big
corporate houses selling educations. This will thus be a
dangerous move. SWORD OF MANDATORY ACCREDITATION As for mandatory
accreditation as a means of enhancing quality, the
government’s view is that
making accreditation mandatory will make the higher
education system in our country
a part of the global quality assurance system. But the
question is: Who will be
favoured by the provision of such mandatory accreditation?
Ensuring quality is
related to proper funding. While presenting the bill in
parliament, the
minister said that academic quality means quality of
teaching, learning and
research including physical infrastructure and enhancement
of human resources.
But how can we achieve all that without proper funding? One may note that the
present, neo-liberal government has continuously been
cutting the funds for public
education. For example, almost 50 per cent of the plan fund
of a premier
institution like the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has
been curtailed. The
demand for spending six per cent of the GDP and ten per cent
of the budget on
education has been neglected continuously by the central
government though this
was recommended by the Kothari commission and other bodies
set up by the central
government itself. A shortage of funding, coupled with
mandatory accreditation,
may turn out to be a big blow to educational institutions,
in particular those
located in rural areas. The fact is that expenditure
per student in higher education continues to be abysmally
low in It is no wonder,
then, that close to 80 per cent of the government aided
colleges and 60 per
cent of the universities across the country are either of
middle or poor
quality. On almost all indicators from infrastructure to
faculty standards,
student-teacher ratio, computer availability to library
facility, the higher education
sector in It is undeniable that
in case of mandatory accreditation, public educational
institutions with poor
infrastructure and faculty may be ranked inferior and not up
to the mark and,
as such, they may face a crisis of existence. However, it is
not improbable
that instead of increasing the funding for public
institutions, the central government
may in future use the mechanism of mandatory accreditation
as a tool to
sabotage the public education system itself and thereby pave
the way for more
privatisation of higher education sector and for entry of
FDI in education. So long
as there is proper funding for public educational
institutions, it is better to
exempt them from mandatory accreditation and thus the
funding for them must be
free from mandatory accreditation. Let us remember:
accreditation is not
mandatory in many countries. At the same time, there must be
a separate mechanism
to access the quality of the teachers and students in such
institutions. It can
be done by the University Grants Commission itself. If at there needs to
be a provision for mandatory accreditation, it must be for
the private
institutions which are mushrooming and making crores of
rupees through commercialisation
of education and fraud upon the public in the name of
quality. Many of the so
called “deemed universities” and foreign institutions
operating here are
offering substandard education while introducing fancy
courses. Quality check
of such institutions must be made a part of the social
audit. QUESTION OF QUANTITY Let’s admit: Mandatory
accreditation is no panacea for the falling gross enrolment
ratio (GER).
Quality is no doubt important, and we must not compromise
it. But quality for
whom? The vast mass of Indian youth aged 18 to 25 still
remains out of the higher
education sector. Almost all of them belong to the
downtrodden families. We
have only 12.6 per cent GER in higher education. Out of
those going to a higher
education institution, only 5.4 per cent are from the SC/ST
groups, less than five
per cent are from the minorities and eight per cent from the
OBC groups. On the
other hand, our GER must be at least 20 per cent so that we
are at par with the
global standards. Thus, it is clear
that what we need is more of colleges and universities, not
less. We have now close
to 30,000 colleges and 500 universities. But we need at
least 800 new
universities and 40,000 new colleges across the country not
--- only to compete
with the rest of the world but also to take the GER from the
present 12.6 per
cent to 30 per cent by 2020. The central government, along
with the state
governments, needs to come forward to take this
responsibility. Higher
education cannot be left in the hands of private players. It is a matter of
serious concern that higher education system in the country
is facing a deep
financial crisis. The government has to face this problem
head on and also re-examine
its policy in the field of education, particularly in higher
education. In sum,
before it introduces mandatory accreditation for higher
education institutions,
the central government must, allow us to say, have an
accreditation of the HRD
ministry itself.
