Education plays a vital role in the development of any nation. Therefore, there is a premium on both quantity (increased access) and quality (relevance and excellence of academic programmes offered) of higher education. The NAAC has been set up to facilitate the volunteering institutions to assess their performance vis-a-vis set parameters through introspection and a process that provides space for participation of the institution.
ASSESSMENT & ACCREDITATION
Created: 29 January 2018
Last Updated: 23 October 2020
- Institution to know its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities through an informed review process
- Identification of internal areas of planning and resource allocation
- Collegiality on the campus
- Funding agencies look for objective data for performance funding
- Institutions to initiate innovative and modern methods of pedagogy
- New sense of direction and identity for institutions
- The society look for reliable information on quality education offered
- Employers look for reliable information on the quality of education offered to the prospective recruits
- Intra and inter-institutional interactions
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), with a record of at least two batches of students graduated, or been in existence for six years, whichever is earlier, are eligible to apply for the process of Assessment and Accreditation (A&A) of NAAC, and fulfil the other conditions or are covered by the other provisions, if any, mentioned below.
Autonomous colleges /Constituent Colleges / Affiliated Colleges (affiliated to universities recognised by UGC as an affiliating University)
- Provided the Colleges are affiliated to a University recognised by UGC for the purposes of affiliation. Constituent colleges of a Private and Deemed- to be Universities are considered as the constituent units of the University and thus will not be considered for A&A independently. Such constituent colleges need to come along with the University
- Provided the colleges / institutions not affiliated to a University are offering programmes recognized by Statutory Professional Regulatory Councils and have been recognised by Association of Indian Universities(AIU) or other such Government agencies concerned, as equivalent to a degree programme of a University
- The NAAC accreditation does not cover distance education units of HEIs and offshore campuses.
- All the institutions intending to apply for Assessment and Accreditation by NAAC need to mandatorily upload the information on All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) portal. AISHE code (reference number) is one of the requirements for Registration.
NAAC’s instrument is developed to assess and grade institutions of higher education through a three-step-process and make the outcome as objective as possible. Though the methodology and the broad framework of the instrument is similar, there is a slight difference in the focus of the instrument depending on the unit of Accreditation, i.e., Affiliated / Constituent colleges / Autonomous colleges / Universities / Health Science / Teacher / Physical Education.
- University: University Central Governance Structure along with all the Under Graduate and Post Graduate Departments.
- College: Any College – affiliated, constituent or autonomous with all its departments of studies.
- Any department/School/Centre of the University.
Presently, NAAC is undertaking only institutional accreditation. Experts groups have been constituted to work on Program Accreditation.
NAAC has identified a set of seven criteria to serve as the basis of its assessment procedures. NAAC has categorized the Higher Educational Institutions into three major types (University, Autonomous College, and Affiliated/Constituent College) and assigned different weightages to these criteria under different key aspects based on the functioning and organizational focus of the three types of HEIs.
The criterion-wise differential weightages for the three types of HEIs are:
|Curricular Aspects||150 (U)||150 (Au)||100 (Aff UG)||100 (Aff PG)|
|Teaching-learning & Evaluation||200 (U)||300 (Au)||350 (Aff UG)||350 (Aff PG)|
|Research, Innovations & Extension||250 (U)||150 (Au)||110 (Aff UG)||120 (Aff PG)|
|Infrastructure & Learning Resources||100 (U)||100 (Au)||100 (Aff UG)||100 (Aff PG)|
|Student Support & Progression||100 (U)||100 (Au)||140 (Aff UG)||130 (Aff PG)|
|Governance, Leadership & Management||100 (U)||100 (Au)||100 (Aff UG)||100 (Aff PG)|
|Institutional Values & Best Practices||100 (U)||100 (Au)||100 (Aff UG)||100 (Aff PG)|
Under each Criterion a few Key Indicators are identified. These Key Indicators (KIs) are further delineated as Metrics which actually elicit responses from the HEIs.
Institutions are graded for each Key Aspect under four categories, viz. A, B, C and D, denoting Very good, Good, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory levels respectively. The summated score for all the Key Aspects under a Criterion is then calculated with the appropriate weightage applied to it and the GPA is worked out for the Criterion. The Cumulative GPA (CGPA), which gives the final Assessment Outcome, is then calculated from the seven GPAs pertaining to the seven criteria, after applying the prescribed weightage to each Criterion.
Advantages of CGPA
- Letter grades converted to Numerical Grade Points (overall score in Cumulative Grade Point Average)
- Qualitative measurements converted to grade points
- Wider scope for normalizing the scores
- Extreme biases (if any) could be minimized
- A one point difference between two letter grades, with 50 or 100 points assigned between two successive letter grades results in appreciable finetuning of the process
- Relative evaluation would be more exact, due to a reduction in variations and standard deviations
- Inter-Peer Team variations are substantially reduced
- With scare scope for adjustment at any stage, the peer team judgment would be more accurate
The NAAC views the process of assessment and accreditation as an exercise in partnership, done jointly by the NAAC and the institution being assessed. Every stage of the process is marked by transparency. The institution is consulted at various stages of the process – eliminating conflict of interest with the peers, planning the visit schedule, sharing the draft peer team report before the team leaves the campus etc. In spite of this participatory approach, there may be institutions that might have grievances to be addressed. Therefore, to provide a review mechanism for institutions who are aggrieved about the process or its outcome or any other issues related thereof, the NAAC has evolved Grievance Redressal Guidelines.
On announcement of the A&A outcome, the institution not satisfied with the accreditation status may submit:
- The letter of intent for appeal along with a request to provide the criterion wise scores so as to reach NAAC within 30 days from the receipt of the letter intimating the accreditation status from NAAC.
- The application for Appeal in the format prescribed by NAAC (refer Grievance Redressal Guidelines) should reach NAAC within 30 days from the date of receipt of the criterion wise scores from NAAC. The application for appeal should be submitted along with the requisite non-refundable fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus service tax (GST @ 18%).
No correspondence (including phone calls) will be entertained on the matter till the appeal is disposed of by the “Appeals Committee/EC of NAAC. An Appeals Committee constituted for the purpose will consider the appeal and make recommendations to the Executive Committee (EC). The decision of the EC shall be binding on the institution.
Scope of Appeals Committee Extended
The Executive Committee (EC) reiterated during 53rd meeting on September, 4th 2010, that Appeals Committee is meant to consider not only the appeals from the Institutions but also to consider cases referred to it by the EC, in case of any deviation from the process of Assessment and Accreditation, violations, complaints, etc.
Institutions, which would like to make an improvement in the accredited status, may volunteer for re-assessment, after completing at least one year, but not after the completion of three years. The option can be exercised only once in a cycle. Re-assessed institution cannot come for another re-assessment in the same cycle. The current procedures and methodology including the manual for the Assessment and Accreditation is applicable for all institutions applying for re-assessment. The fee structure and other process would be as per the current procedures of Assessment and Accreditation (more details can be obtained from NAAC website). Institutions that volunteer for re-assessment will not be eligible for fee waiver and reimbursement of accreditation expenses.
Institutions, which would like to make an improvement in the accredited status, may volunteer for Re-assessment, after completing at least one year but not after the completion of three years. The manual to be followed for re-assessment is the same as that for the Assessment and Accreditation. However, the institution shall make specific responses based on the recommendations made by the peer team in the first assessment and accreditation report, as well as the specific quality improvements made by the institution. The fee structure would be the same as that for Assessment and Accreditation.
When an institution undergoes the accreditation process for the first time it is referred to as Cycle 1 and the consecutive five year periods as Cycles 2, 3, etc.
For Cycle 1, please refer Process of accreditation
For Cycles 2, 3, etc. the following are essential:
- IQAC to be functional
- Timely submission of AQARs annually
- Institutions to submit IIQA, during the last 6 months of validity period subject to the fulfilment of other conditions specified by NAAC from time to time for the purpose.
- Other steps remain the same as first cycle
The final result of the Assessment and Accreditation exercise will be an ICT based score, which is a combination of evaluation of qualitative and quantitative metrics. This will be compiled as a document comprising three parts.
1. Peer Team Report
- Section 1: Gives the General Information of the institution and its context.
- Section 2: Gives Criterion wise analysis based on peer evaluation of qualitative indicators. Instead of reporting with bullet points, this will be a qualitative, descriptive assessment report based on the Peer Team’s critical analysis presenting strengths and weaknesses of HEI under each Criterion
- Section 3: Presents an Overall Analysis which includes Institutional Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges.
- Section 4: Records Recommendations for Quality Enhancement of the Institution (not more than 10 major ones).
2. Graphical representation based on Quantitative Metrics (QnM)
This part will be a System Generated Quality Profile of the HEI based on statistical analysis of quantitative indicators in the NAAC’s QIF (quality indicator framework). Graphical presentation of institutional features would be reflected through synthesis of quantifiable indicators.
3. Institutional Grade Sheet
Contains the Institutional Grade Sheet which is based on qualitative indicators, quantitative indicators and student satisfaction survey using existing calculation methods but it will be generated by a software.
The above three parts will together form “NAAC Accreditation Outcome” document. It is mandatory for the HEIs to display it on their institutional website apart from NAAC hosting it on its website.
|Range of institutional
Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA)
|3.51 – 4.00||A++||Accredited|
|3.26 – 3.50||A+||Accredited|
|3.01 – 3.25||A||Accredited|
|2.76 – 3.00||B++||Accredited|
|2.51 – 2.75||B+||Accredited|
|2.01 – 2.50||B||Accredited|
|1.51 – 2.00||C||Accredited|
|<= 1.50||D||Not accredited|
With Effect From July 2017
- Final CGPA value is rounded off to two decimal points
- The Grading pattern has been prepared as inclusive class intervals i.e., both the upper limit and lower limit are included in the respective class interval
- For example 3.01 – 3.25 class interval is assigned ‘A’ Grade i.e., any value falling between class intervals; and both 3.01 and 3.25 are included in the same class interval;
- But the values below 3.01 or above 3.25 are not included in the same class interval.
- If the third decimal point is more than or equal to 5, then the second decimal point will be increased by one; For example, CGPA of 3.005, 3.006, 3.007, 3.008 and 3.009 are rounded off to CGPA 3.01.
- If the third decimal point is less than or equal to 4, then second decimal point will be retained as it is; For example, CGPA of 3.000, 3.001, 3.002, 3.003and 3.004 are rounded off to CGPA 3.00
- This analogy is applicable to all scores and grades adopted in the Grading pattern and in CGPA scoring pattern.
IQAC – Vision
To ensure quality culture as the prime concern for the Higher Education Institutions through institutionalizing and internalizing all the initiatives taken with internal and external support.
6.5.2 Academic and Administrative Audit (AAA)