NSDA was an autonomous body, chaired by a person, in the rank and status of Cabinet Minister, supported by a Director General. NSDA came into existence in June, 2013, by subsuming PM’s National Council for Skill Development, office of Advisor to PM on Skill Development, and National Skill Development Co-ordination Board. NSDA was mandated to anchor and operationalize NSQF, facilitate setting up of professional certifying bodies among other things. However, things changed with notification of NSQF in December 2013. It created National Skill Qualification Committee (NSQC), a new institution, within NSDA. NSQC was mandated to define sectors, license and regulate Sector Skill Council (SSC), and approve National Occupational Standards/ Qualification Packs (NOS/QPs). What was there for NSDA to facilitate setting up of professional certification bodies, and also to contribute to quality assurance, if SSC as certification body, and quality assurance manuals were approved by NSQC? According to Asian Development Bank report in 2018, NSDA, faced several challenges such as delays in staffing, changes in the management structure, reliance on temporary consultants, and difficulties in coordinating with multiple states and central ministries. The fact is India (DGE&T) was in skill development since 1945. NSDA did not use resources available in the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE).

NSDA was never allowed to function as an autonomous body. After departure of the first chairman NSDA, and Director General, posts were never filled up appropriately. The post of Chairman was occupied by the Secretary MSDE and the post of DG was occupied by almost all the Joint Secretaries in rotation. Now NSDA has been subsumed in National Council for Vocational Education and Training (NCVET). Let us wish NCVET may not meet the same fate. However, NCVET posts are still held by Secretary and Joint Secretary/senior advisors in the MSDE.

On conceptual front, the NSQF notification repeatedly claims that NSQF was quality assurance framework, however, experts opine otherwise. According to OECD, a qualifications framework is an instrument for the development and classification of qualification according to a set of criteria for levels of learning achieved. Qualification frameworks establish basis for improving the quality, accessibility, linkages and public or labour market within a country and internationally. Even the function of quality assurance appears to have been taken at convenience. NSQC approved qualification file of ‘Jute Carding Operator’, under operational strategy states “the technical limitations at the training centers are taken care in theory and viva.” If assessment of trainee is carried out caring limitation of assessment center and assessor, the very purpose of assessment is defeated. Sharda Prasad Committee has found that NSQC in two hours meeting, approved 300-500 courses, reflects seriousness for quality.
NCVET defines Vocational Education and Training as “all skill development programs, both long-term and short term, apprenticeship training and recognition of prior learning, certified by the Council …”. Vocational Education and Training is international term, and NSQF aiming for international mobility for its trainees, cannot afford such a sub-standard concept.

Level Descriptors are another very important component, which contain statements of learning outcomes. Quality, consensus and common understanding of level descriptor plays very important role in success of qualification framework. In fact, level descriptors adopted by NSQF were originally prepared by this author for academic work. Thereafter no work has been done on their explanation, meaning and understanding. German qualification framework has detailed level descriptor, Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework has defined every word used in level descriptor, Australian Qualification framework had detailed level descriptor, latest version has beyond it.

On operational front, NSQF depends heavily on strength of SSCs and SSCs are dependent on consultants. Since they are not membership based organization, they do not carry the strength of industries. Sharda Prasad Committee has highlighted the weakness of SSCs and recommended re-organization of SSC according to International Classification of Industries and reducing the number from 40 to 20. The Indian SSCs have sweeping powers. They design and approval of NOS/QP, assign levels to QP, carry out assessment and certification. They have no parallel in the world. In UK, SSC have no role in assessment and certification. German Chambers have responsibility of certification but they operate as tripartite body with Government and trade union. The performance of SSCs and NSQF have been appreciated only by Government for achieving numerical targets. Ms Calol Upadhya in her study in Karnataka has found skill development as number game.

One of the main objectives of NSQF is to provide mobility between vocational education, vocational training, skill development, general education and technical education. This cannot be achieved without active participation of state governments, state education boards and technical education boards in various aspects of NSQF from design of courses to certification. Presently they have ceremonial roles and are asked only to encourage institutes to adopt NSQF and define their entry and exit qualification in terms of NSQF levels. According to JNU Prof Dr. Santosh Mehrotra, with small duration of courses under NSQF, mobility cannot be achieved.

Implementation schedule of NSQF depend on arm twisting and threats of stopping funding. It cannot sell based on value associated with NSQF. All leading qualifications such as in London, Australia and South Africa have seen several revisions. It is therefore suggested that Government carries out serious review of institutions, underlying concepts and implementation of NSQF. All the stakeholders including central ministries, state governments trade unions youth organizations, academia and Civil society organizations etc. are taken on board to make it truly national mission. Above all country needs a Skill Development Act defining responsibilities of all the stake holders.