Panel suggests tighter rules for coaching centres, curriculum revamp

The panel was formed by the department of higher education in June this year after concerns were raised about the disconnect between school curricula and the demands of competitive examinations such as JEE and NERT.

New Delhi: A nine-member committee formed by the ministry of education to look at ways of reducing the dependence of students on coaching centres has recommended that coaching centres be regulated, particularly their advertising practices, which often mislead students and parents. The committee has also asked that school curriculum be redesigned to better align with competitive exam formats, and that the frequency of entrance exams be increased throughout the year to reduce the stress on students.

The huge gap in the curriculum from Class 10 to 11 was identified as a stress point, which often left students unprepared for entrance exams. Chaired by the secretary of the department of higher education, the committee has as members the chairman of CBSE, members from IIT Madras, NIT Trichy, IIT Kanpur, NCERT, and a member each from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Navodaya Vidyalaya, and a private school, besides the Secretary, Department of School Education.

The ministry has now asked that IIT Kanpur carry out a psychometric analysis of examinations, such as questions and answers from the National Testing Agency. Additionally, the department of school education and CBSE will conduct surveys amongst their students to ascertain their level of engagement with the coaching classes.

After several previous deliberations and meetings, the committee met on August 25 in a meeting chaired by Vineet Joshi, secretary of the department of higher education. “Coaching centres exploit this gap  (between curriculum and entrance exams) by offering structured, exam-focused content, while schools remain focused on board syllabi and holistic development.

The lack of alignment between CBSE's analytical and conceptual approach and the objective, MCQ-based format of entrance exams was seen as a root cause of coaching dependency,” the committee has noted in the meeting, details of which have been accessed by DH.

The committee has noted that a hybrid model of assessment, combining MCQs (multiple-choice questions) with subjective questions, will encourage deeper learning and reduce rote memorisation. It has also been recommended that schools should familiarise students with OMR-based testing to reduce exam-related anxiety.

The panel has asked that teachers be trained in coaching methodologies and competitive exam strategies. “A 'Professor of Practice' model was suggested, wherein domain experts from academia and industry could serve as visiting faculty to mentor students and support teachers,” reads the recommendations.

Mandatory counselling sessions for students and parents were also recommended, besides increasing the frequency of entrance exams.

Most notably, the panel emphasised on the need to regulate coaching centres and said that they should have full disclosure of teaching, methods, faculty qualifications, and success rates. The panel also discussed the importance of psychometric analysis to evaluate whether current entrance exams truly predict long-term success and to identify gaps in the system.