The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is an autonomous body established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in 1994 to systematically assess and accredit the Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in India, with the objective of quality assurance and improvement in the quality of education. Over the years, the NAAC rating has acquired a lot of significance, as it determines the eligibility for government funding, grants and academic autonomy such as approval for online programmes.
In the absence of any other credible independent assessment body in India, parents and students rely on the NAAC rating for choosing the institution for studies. Moreover, many recruiting companies consider it as a benchmark for assessing the quality of the institution. This places pressure on the institutions to secure good NAAC rating.
In the last 30 years, the NAAC accreditation system has undergone several revisions to address emerging challenges, incorporate global best practices, and enhance the credibility of the accreditation process. However, in the recent past, it has been mired in controversies and allegations of corruption, thereby denting its credibility and image. This article examines the issues and the reformative measures, proposed by the NAAC to remedy the situation and enhance the credibility of its ratings.
Current assessment framework
As per the NAAC assessment framework that was launched in July 2017, which is in vogue today, a Self Study Report (SSR) is to be submitted online at NAAC portal, along with supporting documents, covering seven criteria. These are Curricular Aspects, Teaching-Learning and Evaluation, Research, Innovations and extension, Infrastructure and Learning Resources, Student Support and Progression, Governance, Leadership and Management and Institutional Values and Best Practices).
Seventy percent of the total score is a System Generated Score (SGS) that is based on evaluation of the quantitative metrics through a Data Validation and Verification (DVV) process by an independent agency. Clarifications are sought wherever needed. The balance 30% of the score is obtained based on an assessment of the qualitative metrics by the Peer Review Team at the institution and the Student Satisfaction Survey score. On the basis of the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), secured by the institution, the final grade is assigned on a seven point scale from A++ to C. Grade “D” connotes non-accreditation.
Low participation of institutions
As per the NAAC website, as of Feb. 23 2025, 491 universities and 8,226 colleges had been rated, which constitutes about 41% of the universities and 19% of the colleges. NEP 2020 envisages that by 2035, all the institutions should be accredited.
It was found that a number of institutions have not been participating, for fear of securing a poor rating. Besides, most of the colleges lack adequate personnel, well trained in rating preparation. Accreditation participation rates vary significantly across the regions, with the southern states having higher participation compared to northern, eastern and north-eastern regions.
Measures to get accredited institutions
The NAAC introduced a Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF) to simplify the process and focus on outcome-based metrics. It also introduced digital platforms for data submission and IT systems to streamline the processes, including the allocation of peer assessors. Training programmes were conducted for assessors and institutional coordinators to improve the quality of evaluations.
The NAAC has increased its outreach to institutions, particularly in underserved regions, to encourage participation. Besides, it also launched a mentoring system, wherein the best performing institutions serve as mentors to the aspiring institutions.
Allegations of irregularities
Despite the above measures, allegations of subjectivity and bias in the grading process have been raised by some institutions claiming unfair evaluations. Many say the assessment process lacks transparency, particularly about the peer review mechanism. Instances of institutions submitting falsified or inflated data to secure higher grades have been reported.
After studying the NAAC peer team assessment reports, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), in March 2023, was reported to have pointed out glaring discrepancies in 29% of the 133 test checked cases, wherein a significant mismatch between the observations and the awarded scores was observed.
The ICT audit conducted by a committee constituted by the Chairman, NAAC in September 2022 found that the IT system for allocation of assessors was compromised and assessors were allocated arbitrarily. During the recent CBI investigation into the irregularities in the case of a private university, it was reported that the list of inspection team members was “re-generated” by the system, confirming the earlier finding.
Also Read: NAAC bribery case: University debarred for five years from accreditation
A review of aberrations (grade jump of over 2 grades between two consecutive cycles) of about 400 institutions by the NAAC during July- Aug 2023 was reported to have resulted in downgrading the grades of about 50% of the institutions after the review. In Jan. 2024, the NAAC was reported to have put the grading process of 30 Institutions on hold due to grade inflation, wherein an inexplicable jump of five grades was noticed in a few cases between two successive review cycles. Re-Data Validation and Verification (DVV) by a new committee was reported to have led to the reduction of grades for some of the institutions.
As a follow up on the tip-off from the recent CBI investigations on corruption, the NAAC is reported to have removed 900 assessors, constituting about 20% of the empanelled ones, from the peer review panel. Besides, the NAAC seems to be re-examining the assessment reports of the institutions that requested re-evaluation of the grades.
All the above developments point to the erosion of moral values that form the foundation in a quality assessment system. Besides, they are likely to affect the morale of the right minded employees of the NAAC, as an organisation. More importantly, the image of the NAAC and the credibility of its ratings have been dented.
Overarching committee for reforms in accreditation
In order to address the alleged and observed irregularities, an Overarching Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, in November 2022, under the Chairmanship of Dr K Radhakrishnan, former Chairman of ISRO . After studying the prevailing system, various reports on the alleged irregularities and the global rating systems , the committee proposed reforms, aligned with the vision of NEP 2020. These include adoption of a simple, trust-based, data-driven and rationalised system for accreditation.
To encourage more participation from unrated institutions, it recommended an adapted Binary Accreditation System, which is in line with the best global practices. In this system, status is announced as “Accredited” or “Provisionally accredited” (applied but not yet accredited) or “Not accredited” (not applied). Institutions can later move up to Maturity-Based Graded Accreditation (Level 1 to 5), as and when they are ready.
In view of the heterogeneity of the institutions, it is proposed to categorise them, based on their orientation/vision and heritage/legacy, and then seek information, that is appropriate for the category. A framework of 10 attributes, covering input, process, outcomes, and impact has been suggested.
In order avoid duplication of efforts in data collection, a mechanism has been proposed to collect a superset of data from the HEIs, to serve multiple purposes, with an in-built design for collateral cross-checking to check authenticity of data. It is proposed to conduct the assessment with minimal peer review visits, which was the primary source of controversies. The committee submitted its report in January 2024 and the same was accepted by the Government of India.
Progress in implementation of the proposed system
The NAAC, in its meeting held on Jan. 27 2024, decided that the recommended reforms shall be implemented comprehensively before Dec. 2024, in two stages. In the first stage, the Binary Accreditation is to be implemented by May 2024 and no new applications will be accepted as per the earlier RAF methodology thereafter. The Maturity Based Graded levels (MBGL) were slated to be implemented by December 2024.
As per the NAAC notification of 29 June 2024, it was stated that HEIs with valid accreditation as per the present RAF, whose validity expires between July 1 2024 and date of launch of Maturity Based Graded Levels (MBGL), shall be extended for a maximum period of three months after the launch of the MBGL. HEIs that are already accredited may apply for Maturity Based Graded Level, before validity expires, once the MBGL is announced.
HEIs whose Institutional Information for Quality Assessment or SSR applications are under RAF may opt for binary accreditation or may decide to go ahead under the current RAF. Meanwhile, the NAAC conducted regional consultation workshops with stakeholders in five regions and prepared manuals for different disciplines.
After a gap of over seven months, the NAAC issued a notification on Feb. 10 2025, as per which, it is proposed to launch the Basic (Binary) Accreditation in April-May 2025, followed by the Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL). However, details of the Basic Accreditation Framework and procedure have not yet been hosted on the NAAC website. The dates for launch of the MBGL have not been announced either.
Lack of clarity
Though a lot of preparatory work seems to have been done by the NAAC to implement the new reformatory system, for some reason, documents like the details of Binary Accreditation Framework, procedures, manuals and so on have not yet been placed on the NAAC website. Though it has been over a year since the decision was taken to implement the new system in toto by Dec 2024, even the first phase of implementation is yet to be started.
Those institutions interested to apply for the new Binary System have been waiting for over a year. It is not yet clear as to when the NAAC will be ready to start the second phase of implementation of MBGL.. Until the MBGL is implemented, HEIs that are already accredited under RAF cannot shift to the new system. It will necessitate simultaneous operation of both the systems, which may be cumbersome for the NAAC.
It is also not clear how the NAAC will collect the data and validate it, without peer visits, which is the most critical part of the reform. Likewise, NAAC plans for data collection and validation using One Nation One Data (ONOD) Platform, so as to ensure integrity of the data, are also not yet clear.
Meanwhile, recent press reports of last minute cancellation of earlier scheduled peer team visits to some colleges, as a part of an earlier system and plans to conduct verification totally online, were disappointing to the concerned colleges, as they had completed all the preparations for the visits and the procedure for online verification has not yet been published.
Also Read: Bengal colleges eagerly awaiting physical visits by NAAC teams now unhappy as assessment made online due to bribery arrests
Meticulous implementation of proposed reforms
The proposed NAAC reforms are in the right direction and will ensure achievement of the NEP-2020 goals on quality of education, provided they are implemented in the right earnest and quickly. It undoubtedly calls for a change in the mindsets of all the stakeholders and also needs concerted efforts from all the concerned.
Meticulous planning, transparent communication and systematic monitoring will motivate all the stakeholders to strive for successful implementation of the proposed NAAC reforms. Any kneejerk reactions may be counter-productive.
Even the best of the processes cannot be implemented without any human involvement as people do matter. There is a dire need to improve the ethics in the evaluation ecosystem. At the same time, morale and motivation of the NAAC team need to be retained and boosted as the task ahead is daunting. That is the only way to enhance the credibility of the NAAC ratings, which is critical for stepping up the quality of education.
(Dr. O. R. S. Rao is the Chancellor of the ICFAI University, Sikkim. Views are personal.)
(Please send your suggestions and feedback on education to [email protected]. We welcome them)
Published – February 26, 2025 09:32 pm IST