An unusual spectacle has been unfolding on social media over the past few weeks. Several prominent coaching-centre owners and education influencers have launched a sustained attack on institutions such as the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
While these agencies are certainly not beyond criticism and have faced legitimate questions over examination management and evaluation processes, the intensity and persistence of the campaign against them raise an important question as to why has a section of the coaching industry become so aggressively invested in discrediting public examination bodies?
The answer lies in understanding the peculiar nature of our coaching system and its place within the country’s education structure. The coaching industry is a consequence of shortcomings in our education system. Coaching centres have flourished because schools, colleges and universities have increasingly failed to meet the expectations of students and parents.
Thus this supplementary academic assistance has evolved into a parallel education system. This dependence is not confined to government schools. Students from some of the country’s most expensive private schools routinely enrol in coaching programmes.
At the higher education level, the phenomenon is even more pronounced. Whether it is civil services, banking recruitment, or any other postgraduate competitive examinations, success is often perceived as impossible without undergoing the rigorous regimen of a coaching institute.
Entire city economies in places such as Kota, Delhi, Hyderabad and Prayagraj are significantly influenced by educational coaching. The sector generates substantial employment and contributes considerable tax revenues. It is therefore intriguing that the leaders of such a thriving industry have increasingly chosen to position themselves in opposition to government agencies.
One explanation could be the growing attempts by governments to regulate the sector. Across the country, concerns have mounted regarding excessive fees, misleading advertisements, unrealistic success claims, student stress, inadequate infrastructure and poor safety standards, including tragic deaths of students in various coaching hubs, have further intensified demands for regulation.
Industry critics argue that certain business practices adopted by coaching centres thrive in an environment of opaqueness. Technological interventions introduced by examination bodies, such as online evaluation systems, digital monitoring and algorithm-based assessment safeguards, are viewed as attempts to reduce opportunities for manipulation and information irregularity.
Despite the initiatives, the governments themselves have often undermined their own case. Administrative lapses, examination controversies and technological glitches have weakened public confidence in institutions like the NTA and CBSE. Every such failure provides ammunition to coaching influencers, who are quick to portray themselves as the true guardians of students’ interests.
Against this backdrop, the Delhi government’s move to regulate coaching centres deserves attention. A multidisciplinary panel has been formed to frame guidelines on fee structures, student safety, welfare measures, mental health support and counselling mechanisms.
The objective is laudable but translating it into an effective policy will be extraordinarily difficult. The first challenge is the sheer size and economic influence of the industry. Many institutions have evolved into national brands with thousands of students and sophisticated marketing networks. Any attempt to regulate them is likely to encounter resistance, lobbying and legal challenges.
The second challenge concerns enforcement. Delhi’s experience with regulating private schools offers a lesson. Despite repeated efforts by government, implementation of fee-regulation norms has remained uneven. Schools have often found ways to circumvent restrictions. If enforcing regulations on formally recognised schools has proven difficult, regulating the far more fragmented coaching sector may be an even greater challenge.
Delhi’s proposed framework is therefore at best a beginning and it should not be mistaken for a complete solution. Regulation can improve transparency, safety and accountability. It can protect students from the worst excesses of commercialisation. What it cannot do is eliminate the underlying conditions that made coaching indispensable in the first place.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms,
Development & Justice