UGC to scrap performance appraisal
By Sruthisagar Yamunan | ENS - CHENNAI
05th November 2012 08:54 AM
In a move that has drawn strong criticism from academics, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has decided to scrap the much-appreciated Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) for teacher promotions, a setup brought in just two years ago following wide deliberations.
At the 489th meeting of the UGC held recently, it was decided to accept the recommendations made by a Revisit Committee, which was formed to reassess norms with regard to teacher appointments and promotions framed in the UGC regulations of 2010, following pressure from teacher associations.
Sources in the UGC said that the revisit panel had recommended that the universities be given more say in the way their teachers were assessed.
Therefore, a prescribed format might not serve the purpose.
However, scrapping the PBAS has evoked much criticism from the academia. S P Thyagarajan, who was part of the committee that framed the 2010 regulations, said he was unhappy with the decision that seemed retrograde.
According to him, the whole idea of PBAS was to bring uniformity across the country on appraisal of teaching faculty.
“When we framed the regulations, it was scrutinised and accepted by the MHRD,” he pointed out.
The format prescribed by the UGC for the assessment under the PBAS was based on a set of Academic Performance Indicators under three different categories. “Not just research, the idea was to provide a 360-degree assessment. We also gave enough space for the universities to tinker the format within the framework,” said Thyagarajan.
Academics felt that the UGC had succumbed to pressure from teacher associations, many of which wanted the norms to go.
“By scrapping the Performance Based Appraisal System, the UGC has now pushed the universities back to the older setup, where merit alone was rarely the consideration for promotions,” said Gopalji Malvia, a former professor of the University of Madras.
Post a Comment
Recent Activity
- The Woolwich 'beheading' is straight out of al-Qaeda's terror manual
- Not a drop of Cauvery for people on its banks
- Dalit discrimination 'forms' in colleges
- Marine turtles giving Kerala a miss
- New mango named Nirbhaya after gang-rape victim
- Shortage of essential TB drug heightens risk to patients, others
- Four years of UPA-II
- Nine years as PM: What will be Manmohan Singh's legacy?
- Names of UPA ministers will surface in IPL spot-fixing: Swamy
- Knowledge and faith
- CM can go his way: Ramesh Chennithala
- BrahMos missile test fired from Russian warship
- IPL ban, takeover of BCCI sought
- Spot-fixing: CSK owner's relative under police scanner for Vindu connection
- IPL Eliminator: Brad Hodge helps Royals beat Sunrisers
- BSNL Ernakulam posts Rs 390-crore turnover
Comments(49)
Reverting back to old practice of promtion only speaks of dilution and easy sclae of career advancemnt with no quantitative or qualitative teaching & research practices in higher education. There will neiother be standards nor uniformity at the national level in this regard.
Posted by a.amudavalli at 11/05/2012 14:44 Reply to this Report abuse
I welcome the UGCs decision to scrape the PBAS with APIs. The system is unscholary and defies all norms of Quantitative Behavioural Research. Not only its methodological foundation but it is also conceptually and theretically very weak. A very simple example the so called experts who developed it have not been able to name the three dimensions rather they have classified the indicators into three categories. They do not even know the dimensions need to be identified and indicators assessing them be identified next. Further, the three catagories I, II and III are not mutually exclusive. Their scoring and weighing process is highly arbitrary. In a diverse country like ours their uniform minimum scores are atrocious. I have a doubt that the experts who developed the PBAS have any training in educational evaluation or behavioural research. The PBAS so for in its implementation resulted only in mushrooming of unscholarly fake journals and books which publish articles on payment basis.
Posted by Dr. Kanagaraj Easwaran at 11/05/2012 17:36 Reply to this Report abuse
The old system and the new system both can be "used" by the people in the administration to promote whom they want. In the new system that was scrapped, many may not quality to apply for promotion. But in the former, many will quality to apply. Our academicians has no ethics and it is so sad that we try to shape the younger minds. If one can not reach the minimum API score expected, then the can continue in their old position. If they dont do research, they can just stay as Assistant Professors. They dont need promotion. But they are the one promoted because they do whatever the administrations want. If there is God, then he should come and stop UGC from doing all nonsense. If they initially agreed, then why revisit. Educated Idiots?
Posted by Prof. Kumar at 11/07/2012 15:27 Reply to this Report abuse
Mr.Yamunan "much-appreciated Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) for teacher promotions, a setup brought in just two years ago following wide deliberations". Dear Sri Yamunan who appreciated this flawed PBAS? I would also like to know where did the UGC conduct the so called deliberations. I have my self asked UGC to say whether this framework has any theoretical basis or empirically tested in an RTI petition. UGC has no answers for these questions. Those who appreciate this are the retired professors like Prof. Thiyagarajan and Prof. Malavia whose quality of teaching only their students will be able to testify.
Posted by Dr. Kanagaraj Easwaran at 11/07/2012 16:22 Reply to this Report abuse
[!User Complaint!] PBAS must not be scrapped.There are grey areas in the PBAS format designed by the UGC. However those can be amended suitably.For example Principal of a college has more of administrative responsibilities and duties to discharge.Hence scope for research in such case is limited. PBAS for principal has to be different giving more weightages to nature of duties he/she performs. If UGC goes back to old system of CAS or left it to the respective universities to decide about CAS, uniformity will be lost.Moreover injustice to those who have been promoted under CAS using the current PBAS. Hence the UGC can have a relook but scrapping PBAS is not the solution.
Posted by DEBAJIT SARKAR at 12/03/2012 08:18 Reply to this Report abuse
“Not just research, the idea was to provide a 360-degree assessment. We also gave enough space for the universities to tinker the format within the framework,” said Thyagarajan. Professor Thyagarajan is simply wrong. This PBAS with three category APIs undervalue teaching and over emphasize research and publication.Because of this teaching is neglected and research is over emphasised by teachers. Teachers have started publishing through payment mode. The PBAS is useful to book and journal publishing companies. I challenge Professor Thiyagarajan and Prof. Malvia to establish the PBAS with APIs on theoretical, conceptual and methodological grounds.
Posted by Dr. Kanagaraj Easwaran at 11/07/2012 16:30 Reply to this Report abuse
You are right sir there is flood of ISSn journal charging 1500 to 2000 for publication of junk articles and not resarch paper.and it is not there fault but UGC has provided a source for earninig . hats off to ugc for providing jobs and income opportunity without any effort
Posted by DR rahul Sahai Bisarya at 01/01/2013 21:09 Reply to this Report abuse
As you have said regarding Prof. Thyagrajan comment, I want to add some thing more that is , In 2010 ordinance there was clearly mentioned that points should be from the third category i.e research category. Now he must explain how can there be a 360 degree assessment. Peoples have started writing book on the subject they do not much about it, just to satisfy the demanded specialization in adds given.
Posted by Dr.H.S.kale at 02/14/2013 00:04 Reply to this Report abuse
API system is adversely affecting the expected enhancement of quality of research, Many publications have mushroomed to loot money through publication of any research paper and, books. Not only this many organisations are there, making money through felicitating(?) the people. API has boosted the malpractices. It is true that honest efforts are necessary to count work of honest people.
Posted by Dr. M. T. Bachute at 03/09/2013 00:03 Reply to this Report abuse