NAAC: What about accreditation of accreditors?

The NAAC is in the news these days for reasons that must make the agency and the academic community shudder.

As the NAAC contemplated acting on the Radhakrishnan Committee’s report on reforming accreditation, it found itself embroiled in a graft scam.

As the NAAC contemplated acting on the Radhakrishnan Committee’s report on reforming accreditation, it found itself embroiled in a graft scam. The chancellor of a university and a few officials were arrested for allegedly bribing the experts for higher grades than the institution deserved. Some of the concerned peer-team members were also booked for allegedly skimming favours in cash and kind.

The NAAC has acted speedily and taken more than 800 experts off its panel. How did it identify them so fast? Why did it wait for the taint to become public if the suspects were already known?

The NAAC would now be under pressure to effect select recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Committee. Accreditation will now be a two-step process: A mandatory binary accreditation followed by a voluntary maturity-based grading. The assessment parameters might be drastically diluted to make a much larger number of institutions qualify for accreditation. Peer assessment will likely go digital, eliminating the need for physical visits.

These measures may not necessarily help the NAAC fulfil its primary obligation of promoting quality and enhancing excellence in higher education so long as autonomy and empowerment continue to elude the agency.

The agency’s foremost failing was the refusal of premier higher educational institutions, the Institutions of National Importance (INIs), to get themselves accredited by it for quality assurance. Even today, the IIMs,IITs, and similar institutions remain unaccredited.

Even if they did not intend to challenge the agency’s competence and credibility, their decision and its acceptance by the NAAC, as well as the University Grants Commission and the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development – now the Union Ministry of Education – signaled just that. The global higher education fraternity often quipped: How come the only national accrediting agency does not accredit the best higher education institutions in India?

Executive Council, and the Director of NAAC all have an INI background. This, however, has yet to help the agency build its reputation. The second undoing of the NAAC was its decision to not only accredit but also grade institutions. For most accred…

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com//india/naac-what-about-accreditation-of-accreditors-3447479

The traditional score-centric system is being replaced with a more qualitative evaluation that incorporates a variety of performance areas. Here’s what’s new:

Student-Centric Metrics: The new framework will account for student feedback, mentoring, and learning outcomes.
Community Engagement: Teachers’ contributions to outreach programs, societal projects, and institution-building activities will be given weightage.
Teaching Excellence: Classroom innovation, use of technology, and engagement with learners will hold more value than just publication records.
Reduced Pressure on Research Metrics: While research remains important, its weight in overall appraisal has been rationalized, recognizing that not all faculty roles are research-intensive.

Key Highlights – UGC’s New Teacher Appraisal Norms 2025

What’s Changing in UGC’s Faculty Appraisal Process?

Why the Change?

The UGC has acknowledged that the earlier metrics disproportionately rewarded publishing, often at the expense of meaningful teaching. By shifting to this new model:

The system becomes more inclusive and fair, particularly for teachers in non-research-intensive roles.
Faculty can focus on student outcomes, pedagogy, and real-world impact.
It aligns with the broader vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which promotes a multidimensional approach to education quality.

Source: https://www.deccanherald.com//india/naac-what-about-accreditation-of-accreditors-3447479