EQUIVALENCE AND ACCREDITATION
7.01 It is a cardinal principle in OLS that the standard of
curriculum and expected achievement in any of the open
courses should not be less than that expected in an institutional
course, although the contents may be somewhat different, being
need-based. Comparability of standards is essential as the
products of OLS would have to be acknowledged as equal to
those expected to be produced by the institutional system. This
is necessary to enable them to find placements in jobs or in
higher education and to emphasize the concern for efficiency in
studies and in work-performance. It is obvious that compara-
bility or equivalence of open courses with institutional courses
will have to be decided on the basis of carefully formulated
criteria related to acquisition of expected competencies. An
appropriate organization will have to be entrusted with the task
of formulation as well as application of the essential criteria of
comparability. Considering that the open learning system is
directed towards serving those who seek academic education as
also those who seek job-oriented education, the evaluation or-
ganization will have to be specially constituted.
7.02 IGNOU has already set up a Distance Education
Council for Higher Education. A similar Council for School
Education is expected to evolve under the leadership of Na-
tional Open School. There are privately conducted job-oriented
open education institutions with direct linkages with market-de-
mand and these use the demonstration of the expected levels of
performance on the job, as the chief criterion of success. They
do not bother about equivalence with the formal system.
7.03 A meeting ground for these diverse evaluation sys-
tems could be provided by a National Consortium on Open
Education. Such a consortium could have representatives from
the open system, formal system, business and industry, Plan-
ning Commission, Ministry of HRD, Ministry of Labour,
NIEPA and specialists in social auditing, who can objectively
consider the comparability and equivalence problems on the
basis of evaluative studies and relevant research. In the mean-
while, criteria adopted by NOS and various open universities
may prevail, with due Support from government because, ulti-
mately, the open system has to prove its legitimacy and credi-
bility through its performance which must be accepted both by
the academic world and the world of work. The task of stand-
ardization, accreditation and maintenance of quality will ulti-
mately be performed by the National Consortium on Open
Education which would also network and oversee the entire
OLS in the country.
22
7.04 In relation to cost-benefit, accreditation and evalu-
ation, some normative directions would be essential for OLS,
as given below :
(a) Insistence on more intensive and more efficient use of
existing facilities (buildings, equipment, software, curricu-
lum, materials, training, orientation and experience). Sys-
tematic net-working for better utilisation of resources.
(b) State Boards of (School) Education can easily provide infra-
structural facilities, for part- time and own-time education.
Similarly, institutions such as ITIs, Community Polytech-
nics, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, progressive farmers, small-
scale industry, projects of voluntary agencies should
participate in open education. The Community Polytech-
nics, KVKs and rural secondary and higher secondary
schools, should play a wider and stronger role to support
rural learners. Collaboration between The formal and the
open learning channels should be carefully established so
as to be mutually beneficial. For instance, some students
of formal schools may find the distance education texts
useful for improving their performance in the formal sys-
tem. The multi-media packages may exert a beneficial
effect on teaching-learning transactions in formal institu-
tions. On the other hand, institutional facilities could be
used for contact programmes in open education.
(c) Since open learning is essentially distance education which
is a guided exercise in self- learning, a continuing effort to
make the support institutions work efficiently must be
made. A service orientation will be necessary for them.
A narrowly commercial or quid pro quo attitude would be
harmful to OLS.
(d) Financial support for students in OLS would have to be
based on well-established criteria. Financial assistance to
the State Open Schools would be necessary for pro-
gramme-support such as, training, shared production of
materials (print, audio and video packages), evaluation,
and so on. The students should contribute to the services
they receive, be it cost of materials, examination cost or
student service cost, etc. No one should be made to lose
self-respect by providing a totally free education, but rea-
sonable concessions to the indigent and weak would be in
order. It has been realized that whatever is free is seen as
"worthless" by the recipients. The recipients gladly pay
for whatever is worthwhile.
(e) The Open Learning organization should have the necessary
autonomy, with clear guidelines for operation. Old-fash-
ioned administrative and financial controls based on the
mistrust of the user should be discarded as they would
23
obstruct the performance of the open learning system.
OLS must remain dynamic. Autonomy coupled with ac-
countability to the users, to society and to the norms of
financial probity should be the way of functioning.
24