Regulating India’s factories of despair

In January 2024, a significant development unfolded under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, as the Department of Higher Education introduced comprehensive guidelines for coaching centres nationwide. This initiative represents a positive shift, acknowledging the pressing need to address the unchecked proliferation of coaching centres and the alarming rise in student suicides. The move seeks to rectify inadequacies such as substandard facilities, unqualified instructors,
and profit-driven practices prioritising financial gains over student well-being. 

However, amid the unveiling of these guidelines, two tragic incidents in Kota, a prominent coaching hub in Rajasthan, highlighted the persistent challenges faced by students. On January 23, a young NEET aspirant committed suicide, unable to cope with the pressure. Within a few days, a young girl died by suicide, leaving a heart-wrenching note: “Mummy, Papa, I can’t do JEE, so I suicide (sic).” Kota, which witnessed 29 student suicides in 2023 alone, underscores the urgency of addressing the distressing trend that continues unabated.

In response to these distressing events and the widespread acknowledgment of the intense pressure, stress, anxiety, and depression experienced by students in coaching centres, the regulatory measures are appreciated by conscientious citizens, empathetic parents, and compassionate educators. However, questions linger about the efficacy of these guidelines and the collective actions needed from various stakeholders to truly curb this menace. While the number of deaths is mounting, there is no sign of the trend dying down.

The government’s guidelines mandate formal registration, qualified instructors, the avoidance of misleading promises, refraining from enrolling students under 16 years of age, and providing counselling services.

Infrastructural prerequisites include adherence to safety codes, adequate space, electrification, ventilation, lighting, safe drinking water, gender-specific toilets, and a complaint box for student concerns. While commendable, implementing these measures poses a significant challenge for many institutes.

The guidelines also address class conduct, advocating for spaced-out classes, relaxation periods, weekly off, limited daily class hours, and the inclusion of co-curricular activities. However, these guidelines directly clash with the intense study culture prevalent in these centres, making enforcement impractical. Monitoring compliance across a vast number of institutions proves challenging, and the prescribed penalties for non-compliance appear inadequate as deterrents.

Given these challenges, how can students overcome them? To start, students must actively engage in open discussions with their parents about their academic interests, challenging prevailing notions. Parents, in turn, must create an enabling environment at home, accepting and respecting their children’s strengths, failings, and choices. Stereotypes regarding prestigious institutions and equating success with financial prowess need urgent re-evaluation. Unfortunately, some parents are opposed to the government’s initiative, emphasising the need for a paradigm shift. 

Additionally, school teachers should focus on delivering quality education without resorting to private tuition, avoiding endorsements from coaching centres. While regulatory guidelines mark a step in the right direction, the government must extend its efforts beyond directives. Investments in increasing the number of schools and improving infrastructure are crucial. With only 1.5 million schools for 260 million students, the government has inadvertently encouraged the coaching industry’s exploitation, with an annual turnover of a whopping Rs 58,088 crore projected to increase manifold to Rs 1,33,995 crore by 2028 if left unchecked. 

The government plays a pivotal role not just in regulating coaching centres but also in fortifying the school system by allocating resources for infrastructure and hiring more teachers. Unfortunately, the budget allocation for school education remains marginally higher in the interim budget for 2024, impeding significant progress. Efforts should also target reducing exam-related fear and pressure, potentially mitigating the need for extensive coaching.

In short, the guidelines are a commendable first step, but holistic reform requires collective efforts from students, parents, educators, and the government. Only by addressing systemic issues, enhancing the school infrastructure, and fostering a supportive environment can India strive towards a more balanced and student-centric education system, ultimately reducing the distress associated with coaching centres.

(The writer is a professor and dean at Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru)