NAAC’s Binary Accreditation System

NAAC’s Binary Accreditation System: Key Changes, Challenges, and Opportunities Post-July 2024

In a historic shift for higher education in India, National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) the rolled out its binary accreditation system starting July 2024. This significant departure from the earlier multi-tiered grading framework aims to simplify institutional evaluation but also introduces challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. This blog explores the new accreditation system, compares it to the previous model, and highlights the role of the Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF) and Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL).

The Shift: From Graded Accreditation to Binary Accreditation

Until mid-2024, NAAC assessed institutions using a graded evaluation system—awarding scores like A++, A+, B, etc., which provided nuanced differentiation. However, since July 2024, institutions are now categorized in a binary format:

• Accredited
• Not Accredited

While this simplifies accreditation results, it also removes the granularity institutions, students, and stakeholders relied upon.

• Understanding the New Framework: RAF and MBGL
  NAAC’s updated Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF) introduces an enhanced approach to institutional evaluation, emphasizing outcomes and maturity:
  1) Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF):
  Incorporates a data-driven and transparent approach. Focuses on outcome-based assessment, ensuring measurable progress across teaching, research, and governance. 2) Maturity-Based Graded Levels (MBGL):
  While the final accreditation remains binary, institutions are internally assessed on maturity levels across key domains. This serves as a benchmarking tool, helping institutions identify strengths and areas for improvement.
  3) Areas of evaluation include:
  Governance and Leadership Teaching-Learning Outcomes Research and Innovation Infrastructure Student Support Systems

• Challenges of the Binary Accreditation System
  While the binary model simplifies results, it introduces critical challenges:
  1) Loss of Granular Differentiation:
  In the earlier multi-grade system, institutions had a clearer idea of their standing (e.g., A++, A, B).
  With binary results, there is no distinction between "good" and "excellent" institutions.
  2) Increased Pressure to Qualify:
  Institutions now face an all-or-nothing scenario, where failure to meet minimum standards can significantly impact their reputation and funding.
  Smaller or resource-limited institutions may find it particularly challenging.
  3) Decision-Making for Stakeholders:
  Students, parents, and employers now have fewer insights to compare institutional performance, limiting their ability to make informed decisions.

• Opportunities: A Path to Quality and Maturity
  Despite the challenges, NAAC’s binary accreditation system and MBGL offer new opportunities:
  Focus on Minimum Quality Benchmarks: Institutions are now encouraged to prioritize foundational quality standards rather than chasing incremental grades. Continuous Improvement Through Maturity Levels: While the binary system provides a straightforward outcome, the MBGL assessment enables institutions to continuously evolve by identifying specific areas of growth.
  Outcome-Driven Education: By integrating outcome-based metrics, NAAC ensures that institutions focus on measurable improvements in student learning, research output, and institutional governance.
  Global Alignment: The simplified system aligns Indian accreditation practices with global benchmarks, making Indian institutions more competitive internationally.

A Comparative Snapshot: Old v/s New System

Aspect	Old System	New System
Outcome Type	Graded (e.g., A++, A, B)	Binary (Accredit- ed/Not Accredited)
Evaluation Framework	Static Criteria	Dynamic, Outcome-Based
Institutional Benchmarking	Limited	Maturity-Based Graded Levels
Pressure on Institutions	Moderate	High