International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 4 Issue: 3

ISSN: 2321-8169
220 -222

______________________________________________________________________________________

A Comparative study of Accrediting Bodies in India with respect to Higher

Institutes
Dr. R. D. Jadhav
Associate Professor
Dept. of Management Studies
Bharati Vidyapeeth Deeemed University, Institute of Management,
Kolhapur-Maharashtra-India
E-Mail: rdjadhav69@gmail.com
Abstract:-The Quality of education in India is a issue of concern due to large number of Institutes starting their courses in the Country. Various
bodies are set up to check the quality of education in higher educational Institutes.
The study is related with comparing the quality parameters of various accrediting bodies in India and suggest best way to make these Institutes
best in quality . These Institutes are playing the important role in quality management. The Higher educational Institutes are now trying hard to
manage and maintain quality at levels of educational activities. The awareness of quality in higher education has forced the Institutions to go for
accreditation from different bodies. The accreditation has proved to be the measure of quality and students community is asking grade of the
Institute before taking admission in to the courses in the country. The strict polices, scales, parameters to grade the Institutes is the challenge
before these agencies. The main focus of this paper is to study the procedure of the accreditation and their requirements. The Quality is
important factor to study . The parameters used to measure the quality. The Authors have done the extensive study on NAAC procedure for
accreditation of the Institutes. The comparative study of quality parameters followed by NAAC, ISO and NBA are tabulated in the paper and its
results are highlighted.
The accrediting bodies have main role to play in coming years to accredited maximum Institutions in India and bring quality awareness among
these Institutions. The Quality has number of parameters to check.
Keywords: UGC , Higher Education , AICTE, NAAC , NBA, ISO, Assessment, Quality factors , Knowledge commission .
Abbreviations :- HEI- Higher Educational Institutes , NAAC :- National Assessment and Accreditation Council NBA:- National Board of
Accreditation , AICTE :- All India Council for Technical Education , ISO :- International Standards organization

__________________________________________________*****_________________________________________________
I. Introduction
The Study is important for keeping quality at higher
educational Institutes and take appropriate action to improve
the quality of higher educational Institutes.
The Higher Education in India is major service sector which
shapes the academic careers of the youth in the country.
Quality at theses Institutions will directly have impact on
these students. The market of the Higher education is
increasing and attracting the stakeholders to take the benefit
of the global marketing in higher education sector. The
Institute have to provide best education in minimum cost.
The accreditation is required for maintaining quality.
Accreditation status is also not encouraging hardly 172 0ut
of 677 (26%) Universities have been accredited by NAAC
also only 15% Colleges have been accredited by NAAC .
This process has to be seriously taken by the stakeholders of
HEI and Reaccreditation process also does not show
encouraging picture many of the colleges do not show
interest in going of reaccreditation process.

II.

Comparison of Accrediting Parameters of

NAAC,NBA, ISO
Table No. 1.0
NAAC
NBA
ISO
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

urricular
Aspects
TeachingLearning
and
Evaluation
Research,
Consultanc
y and
Extension
Infrastructu
re and
Learning
Resources
Student
Support

a.

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Institutional
Mission, Vision
and
Program
educational
objectives
Programme
outcome
Programme
Curriculum
Students
Performance
Faculty
Contributions
Facilities and
Technical
Support

1) Establishing
criteria for
Students
admission.
2) Establishing
criteria for
Teachers
recruitment
3) Syllabus
planning.
4) Lectures /
classroom
sessions
planning.
5) Maintaining
applicable
220

IJRITCC | March 2016, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 4 Issue: 3

ISSN: 2321-8169
220 -222

______________________________________________________________________________________
6.

7.

and
Progression
Governance
,
Leadership
and
Manageme
nt
Innovations
and Best
Practices

g.

h.

i.

Academic
Support
Units
and
TeachingLearning Process
Governance,
Institutional
Support
and
Financial
Resources
Continuous
Improvement in
Attainment
of
Outcomes

infrastructure
of institute
covering class
rooms, library,
canteen,
auditorium,
school
building,
drinking water
facility, stair
case, floor, etc.
for ensuring
quality and
safety.
6)
Examination
planning.
7) Maintaining
inventory of
books and
other
necessary
documents.

Inference from the Table 1.0

From above table no 1.0. It is observed that in General
Parameters revolve around same outcomes for accreditation
still uniformity is required. But many parameters do not
have proper statements to evaluate except NAAC because it
has very clear questions , statements which can be
quantified. Other two bodies NBA ISO have to make
similar parameters and should not divert the focus of quality
measurement. The NAAC has 7 parameters , NBA has 9
parameters and ISO uses 7 parameters to evaluate the
Institutes of higher learning. There must be common goals
and should not have different scales to measure the quality
of the Institutes. The Scale unit should be stated and
evaluated on similar scale so that it will not have major
change if any of the accrediting body accredits the Institute.
The author survey has reveled that some Institutes have A
grade by NAAC and NBA feels that quality of A grade
Institute is not up to their mark they have been given not
accredited status which contradicts with each other and
even one such case
will have very bad effect on
understanding about accrediting bodies in the minds of
stakeholders . ISO has not considered Curricular Aspect in
their parameters. The small activity of examination planning
is given as parameters. Serious thought should be given to
frame parameters of the quality measures for Higher
educational Institutes.

III. Grading System used by Accrediting Bodies

Table No. 1.1
NAAC
NBA
ISO
A -Grade (Very Good)
Accredited for (3
ISO
B Grade (Good)
Years to 5 Years )
Certified
C- Grade (Satisfactory)
As per the
D-Unsatisfactory Not
recommendations
Accredited
of peer team)
(Grade valid for 5
Not Accredited
Years)
Inference from Table no 1.1
Inference from the above table in short can be drawn as :From the above table it seen that all three accrediting bodies
have different grading pattern. It is observed from the above
comparison that NAAC has proper distribution of weight
ages and Institute can be evaluated by 4 scale grade system.
As far as NBA is considered it only gives 2 grades like
accredited or not accredited but it gives accreditation for 3
or 5 years but from the data available it is observed that 90%
Institutes are accredited for 3 years and others are accredited
for 5 years. So it is difficult again differentiate all accredited
Institutes as per the quality. Which is best and which is not
best. The NBA should also use 4 or 5 scale Grading system
to get more particular and more effective as far as grading is
considered. It is also observed from the survey conducted by
the authors. That 80% of the Accredited Institutes are not
willing to go for 2nd or 3rd cycle of accreditation process
because of the procedure and no proper justice is given to
the good performing Institutes. The ISO still has to make the
trace in terms of its image and faith in the Institutes since
very few Institutes are going for ISO certification. Also no
financial benefits are given to theses Institutes from UGC or
Govt. bodies . The quality parameters are similar and
revolve around the same output and different stages.
Conclusion
The accreditation is required to keep quality in India to get
best results in higher educational Institutes. The parameters
are set as per the area and keep as per the present
requirement of time and problems in Higher Educational
Institutes.
The Accrediting bodies have to make the quality parameters
uniform to assess the Institutions of higher learning. The
variations in the parameters will not be proper way to assess
and it will discourage the Institutions for going for
accreditation. The Marking scheme quantifying the
parameters to evaluate the academic Institutions is difficult
task and it will require combine efforts form experts form
the field of higher education . The future of these
Institutions will depend on the grades they obtain form
221

IJRITCC | March 2016, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 4 Issue: 3

ISSN: 2321-8169
220 -222

______________________________________________________________________________________
theses bodies and they will have to maintain the higher
grades to run the Institutions . The Best parameters will have
best results to keep quality in higher educational Institutes.
References
[1] Joseph Benjamin Evaluating the Ranking grading
Criteria for sustaining Quality in Higher Educational
Institutions University News May-27 June 02, 2013
p.8-9
[2] C. R. Kothari, Research Methodology, New Age
International Publishers, New Delhi, Second Revised
Edition (2004).
[3] Sheela Ramchardan and Hema NaliniThe Roadmap to
Competency and Quality in Higher Education
University News 51(04) Jan-Feb-2013 Page 2-3 ISSN 0566-2257.
[4] Web sites www.ugc.in , www.aicte.ernet.in ,
www.naac.org ,www.rbint.co.in.

222
IJRITCC | March 2016, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________