India is a nation of hopes and dreams, with having the largest population in the world it also has the largest base of young and adult population. These young, aspiring, and desirous minds are filled with endless vivacity to achieve more and more in whatever field they are in. And to cater to this ever-expanding zeal of gaining their aim they are even ready to sacrifice their teenage time in preparing and striving for that goal. But these dreams come with a huge cost in terms of money, time, a physical as well as mental health.
To fulfill this aspiration of parents, their wards come to the coaching institutes to cover the gap between the conventional educational system and competitive entrance examination system which in turn leads to the rise of uncontrolled and unregulated coaching industry. Historically, India’s formal education system had various limitations, prompting students to seek additional support beyond schools. The surge in competitive exams (like IIT-JEE, and NEET) necessitated specialized coaching. Limited seats in elite colleges and an exponential increase in the number of students applying for the same intensified demand. Parents recognized coaching’s role in solidifying knowledge and enhancing conceptual learning. Trust in the coaching center’s ability to equip their child with sufficient knowledge to crack these overly competitive exams led to their expansion. Today, lakhs of students rely on well-known brands like Aakash and FIITJEE for successful entrance exam preparation.
Over the period the competition for the seats increased manyfold as IIT-JEE has around 10,000 seats, yet more than 200,000 students show up for its entrance exams. More than 770,000 show up for the NEET for an insignificant 2,140 seats. Despite the miserable proportion of the students accepted in these engineering or medical institutes, the total number of candidates appearing for IIT-JEE or NEET goes in lakhs.
But as the coin has two sides this increase in the craze of getting enrolled in well-reputed coaching centers also has its grey area. The concerns related to coaching centers in India have garnered significant attention due to their rapid proliferation and impact on students.
Some of these issues are: –
The private coaching sector has witnessed exponential growth, driven by the increasing demand for competitive exams and entrance tests. However, the quality of coaching centers varies significantly. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for a robust regulatory framework to ensure that coaching institutes adhere to standardized teaching methodologies, maintain qualified faculty, and provide adequate infrastructure, by setting clear guidelines, the government can ensure that students receive consistent and high-quality education. Unregulated coaching centers often compromise student safety. Instances of fire accidents, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate facilities can be seen easily. This comprehensive framework would mandate safety measures, including fire safety protocols, emergency exits, hygiene standards, and regular inspections that can prevent exploitation and safeguard students’ physical and mental well-being. Therefore, to tackle these issues there is an urgent need for a comprehensive regulatory framework by the government keeping all the stakeholders’ students, parents, coaching institutes, and policymakers in confidence is crucial.
The historical context of private coaching centers in India is marked by significant shifts in the education landscape. The turning point came with the Economic Reforms of 1991, which liberalized the Indian economy. This led to a surge in demand for competitive exams and entrance tests. As students aspired to prestigious institutions like the IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology), the need for specialized coaching intensified. These economic reforms facilitated the establishment of private educational institutions across India. These institutions catered to various academic needs, including coaching. Thus, the coaching industry, once limited to academically weak students, transformed into a billion-dollar sector. Kota, a small town in Rajasthan, emerged as the epicenter of coaching centers. It gained fame for preparing aspiring engineers for the JEE-Advanced examination. The town witnessed an influx of students seeking intensive coaching to crack competitive exams. Coaching centers adopted a market-driven model, prioritizing profit maximization.
The absence of a regulatory body allowed these centers to commercialize rapidly, often at the expense of students’ well-being. All these factors lead the government to come up with the present guidelines.
Over the years, the commercialization of coaching centers in India has been significant and it has continued to grow. In 2018, the coaching industry was worth around $6.4 billion and by 2020, it is set to more than double the estimated value of $14 billion. The success of these coaching centers nowadays is not only gauged by the performance of the students in their respective studies or selected exams but also by the wealth or income they can generate. This is because several established coaching centers now have diversified into private schools – in the case of which they promise to provide a group of selected students from their coaching centers and place them in the schools. By doing this, these private schools have higher expectations that the students will perform well in their respective studies and hence commercial success will be assured. However, coaching centers promise a better career, high reward strategies, and support towards the pursuit of knowledge. This commercialization has suffocated the moral values and the objectives of education; and as designated on the website of the Central Board of Secondary Education, the board has increasingly found that it is being approached by the schools and parents about the undue pressure exerted by the managements for the collection of the commercial fund and the high-handed behavior of such institutions.
There are about 40 million (4 crore) students enrolled in various coaching institutes across the country. These institutes help students prepare for the highly competitive college entrance exams and admission into the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs). The number of students in coaching institutes makes up about 3 percent of the total population in India. The revenue generated by the coaching industry is also very impressive. In 2018, the industry was estimated to be worth $6.73 billion, and it is expected to continue to grow in the future. One of the most famous coaching institutes, Kota’s Allen Career Institute, had a revenue of $57 million in 2017. Such is the power of these institutes that the fees collected by them in total could even have an impact on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country. The industry also does not lack tax revenue, as it was estimated that coaching institutes pay around $245 million in taxes to the government. This is a very considerable amount of money, and given the rapid growth of the industry, could rise to almost $1 billion in the future. At present, the tax generated by the industry is already over 50% of the education tax in India. This demonstrates that the influence of the coaching industry is not only felt socially but also economically and politically. Given these astonishing numbers, it is surprising to find that, despite the enormous fees charged by some of the top institutes, very little is being reinvested back into them. In 2014, it was estimated that only 12% of the total revenue was spent on tutors who teach the students. Therefore, guidelines were introduced by the government so that these institutes reinvest up to 75% of the total revenue back into the institute, which could improve the quality of teaching and facilities for students. These guidelines highlight a key issue with the coaching industry, that the institutes and their corporate bodies are more focused on the material success of the institute. This demonstrates their capitalistic nature and lack of interest in the student’s development, as well as questioning the ethical standing of some of the bodies involved in the industry.
Data from the Ministry of Human Resource Development in India shows that the education sector got a 6.68 percent share of the total government expenditure and 546 billion rupees (in year 2014) in GDP. Out of the total contribution of the education industry to the GDP, 71 percent was from Higher Education and 18 percent was from Coaching and Preparatory Industry. This industry also employs a large workforce, having a student-teacher ratio of 28 and a compound annual growth rate of 23 percent. The coaching industry got 20 billion rupees (in the year 2014) of total revenue, including student fees and government funding. It thus generated a 0.003 percent share in the GDP and an astonishing 0.5 percent share in the total tax revenue. The Asian Development Bank’s 2012 report estimated the coaching industry to be growing more than 15% each year. The shift to private sector educational providers such as coaching centers from mainstream education providers was a market response to the aspirations of the emerging middle classes and gave new hopes to students who would have otherwise not received formal technical higher education. Data from the National Sample Survey Office’s 71st round reveal that more than a quarter of Indian students (a stupendous 7.1 crore) take private coaching. Around 12% of a family’s expenses go towards private coaching, across rich and poor families alike.
To curb this menace various state governments have come up with various legislation in their respective jurisdiction such as the Bihar Coaching Institute (Control & Regulation) Act, 2010 [Bihar Act 17, 2010], Goa Coaching Classes (Regulation) Act, 2001 (Goa Act 27 of 2001), Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002 [UP Act no. 5 of 2002], the Karnataka Tutorial Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2001 [framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act 1 of 1995)], Manipur Coaching Institute (Control and Regulation) Act, 2017 (Act no. 8 of 2017) etc. Rajasthan Coaching Institutes (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2023 is also in the public domain and recently guidelines for reducing Stress and improving the Mental Health of Students enrolled in coaching Institutes have been issued by Govt. of Rajasthan on 27.09.2023.
New education policy also envisioned various steps for reducing stress by ‘focus on regular formative assessment for learning rather than the summative assessment that encourages today’s ‘coaching culture.’ NEP 2020 in its Para 4.36 recognizes the current nature of secondary school exams, including Board exams and entrance exams, the resulting coaching culture of today, and its harmful impact. Para 4.37 of NEP 2020 suggests reform in the existing system of Board and entrance examinations to eliminate the need for undertaking coaching classes. Para 4.38 inter alia suggests introducing greater flexibility, student choice, and best-of-two attempts, assessments that primarily test core capacities and develop further viable models of Board Exams that reduce pressure and the coaching culture. Para 4.42 of NEP 2020 states that ‘the principles for university entrance exams will be similar. The National Testing Agency (NTA) will work to offer a high-quality common aptitude test, as well as specialized common subject exams in the sciences, humanities, languages, arts, and vocational subjects, at least twice every year. These exams shall test conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge and shall aim to eliminate the need for coaching for these exams. Students will be able to choose the subjects for taking the test, and each university will be able to see each student’s subject portfolio and admit students into their programs based on individual interests and talents.
Judicial activism also did not lag in passing the direction in the same matter. A PIL in WP No. 456 of 2013 in the matter of Student Federation of India Vs UOI and others was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Ministry of Education was one of the respondents. The PIL was disposed off with the direction that the issue raised in the petition, though important, is basically a policy matter. It will be open to the petitioners to raise the issue before the concerned authorities who may consider the same in accordance with law.
In the Ashok Mishra Committee Report, 2017 Dept. of Higher Education had requested States / UTs to take action for regulation and strict penalty system for deviant institutions. In this letter, States / UTs were requested to take into consideration 12 measures suggested by Justice Roopanwal Commission of Enquiry to address student suicide.
Finally, in January 2024, the central government came up with the GUIDELINES FOR REGULATION OF COACHING CENTER, as education falls in Entry 25 concurrent list with the objectives: –
(i) To provide a framework for registration and regulation of coaching centers.
(ii) To suggest minimum standard requirements to run a coaching center.
(iii) To safeguard the interest of students enrolled in coaching centers.
(iv) To advise coaching centers’ focus on co-curricular activities as well as the holistic development of students.
(v) To provide career guidance and psychological counseling for the mental well-being of the students.
Some key features of the guideline –
for registration of the coaching center, either grant the registration certificate in the prescribed form,
or shall communicate to the applicant his order of refusal to grant such registration after
recording reasons in writing, for such refusal.
(a) engage tutors having qualifications less than graduation.
(b) make misleading promises or guarantee of rank or good marks to parents/students for enrolling them in the coaching center.
(c) enroll students below 16 years of age or the student enrolment should be only after the secondary school examination.
(d) publish or cause to be published or take part in the publication of any misleading advertisement relating to any claim, directly or indirectly, of quality of coaching or the facilities offered therein or the result procured by such coaching center or the student who attended such class.
(e) be registered, if it has less than the minimum space requirement per student.
(f) hire the services of any tutor or person who has been convicted for any offense involving moral turpitude.
(g) be registered unless it has a counseling system as per the requirement of these guidelines.
Provisions for penalties are also provided in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of registration or general conditions.
While guidelines are framed to keep in mind the betterment of students as well as parents and tutors but implementation of guidelines pertaining to coaching centres involves a collaborative effort between the central and state governments and local stakeholders. Policy formulation part is done away with which is less than fifty percent part of an effective change, more will depend on proper standardization and monitoring of these rules. It will ensure that the guidelines address critical aspects such as infrastructure requirements, code of conduct, and eligibility criteria for coaching centers. By establishing uniform standards, the central government aims to enhance the quality of coaching services across the country. While the primary responsibility lies with the states, the central government monitors the overall implementation of these guidelines. It ensures that states adhere to the prescribed norms and take necessary actions against deviant institutions.
State governments are directly responsible for the registration and regulation of coaching centers within their jurisdictions. They must verify the eligibility of coaching centers and ensure compliance with safety, security, and quality standards to further prevent exploitative practices and address issues related to student suicides, fire incidents, and inadequate facilities.
By providing a legal framework, the government acknowledges the significance of private coaching centers and seeks to channel their efforts constructively. While immediate effects may not be apparent, the guidelines lay the groundwork for a more structured and transparent coaching industry. The prohibition on enrolling students below the age of 16 is a student-centric measure. It recognizes the vulnerability of young learners and aims to safeguard their well-being and promote a balanced approach, the guidelines prioritize holistic development. Over time, this could lead to a positive shift in the perception of coaching centers and their impact on students’ lives. However, they overlook the pedagogical innovations needed to prepare students for the dynamic demands of Industry 4.0. The one-size-fits-all approach fails to recognize individual strengths and learning styles. It is also silent on the online coaching industry which is minting a lot of money on the aspirations of young ones. While mandating reasonable tuition fees is essential, the guidelines do not address the financial burden on students. Many aspirants, especially from marginalized backgrounds, struggle to afford coaching. The guidelines set minimum qualification requirements for tutors, but they do not emphasize continuous professional development. Coaching centers need well-trained educators who can adapt to changing educational paradigms. Quality audits and peer reviews should be integral to ensure coaching centers maintain high standards. Unfortunately, the guidelines do not prioritize this.
While the guidelines represent a necessary step towards regulation, they must evolve beyond mere compliance. A critical lens reveals gaps in aligning with Industry 4.0, fostering innovation, and prioritizing student well-being. The government must revisit these guidelines, engage stakeholders, especially coaching industry experts and parents, and create a more robust framework that truly prepares students for the challenges of the future.
The author Anil Mehta, is an advocate and Special Cousel, ED. Former Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh; Managing Partner, Lex Solutions; Advocates, Solicitors & Consultants.