ANIL KAPASI

— (Anil Kapasi is the Belagavi (Karnataka)-based Managing Director & Co-Founder of Arihant Academy)

The solution is not to create an adversarial relationship between schools and coaching institutes. The best solution is to ensure that students benefit from both

More than 2.2 million students wrote NEET-UG 2026, with a remarkable 96.92 percent attendance rate in 5,400 examination centres in India and abroad, highlighting the scale of aspirations driving India’s competitive exam ecosystem. Meanwhile, Maharashtra is all set to roll out a long-pending regulatory framework for coaching institutes, and a parliamentary panel is discussing the fast-growing coaching industry and critical social issues associated with it. As the issue gains steam and draws public attention, it is worth examining if schools and coaching institutes are competing or fulfilling different academic requirements and objectives.

Public opinion on coaching institutes is divided. On one hand, coaching institutes are condemned for adding to the academic strain of students and for creating a parallel school system. On the other, they are seen as indispensable for success in competitive examinations. The reality lies somewhere in between.

These days, students don’t learn only in classrooms. They learn across a network of schools, on digital platforms, from mentors and peer groups in self-study environments, and in many cases, also in coaching institutes. Most students don’t believe education is a choice between school and coaching. When students sign up with coaching institutes, their objective is to test how a different learning environment can assist them to achieve their academic and career goals.

This is particularly true in the context of the fiercely  competitive exam ecosystem in India. Entrance exams like NEET-UG and IIT-JEE are not like normal school tests. They need speed, precision, and superior problem-solving skills to write exams under pressure and constant practice over a lengthy period of time. Schools were never about this. Their role is much wider. They provide academic foundation, communication skills, discipline, critical thinking and social skills. For competitive exams, special prep is required.

This is why the surging demand for coaching can’t be seen as an indictment of schools. Coaching institutes are the outcome of the education ecosystem. With millions of school-leavers competing for a restricted number of seats in medical colleges, IITs, NITs and other professional institutions, it’s natural for families to seek additional academic support.

In recent conversations about coaching centres, integrated coaching models have also been suggested. Currently in some cases, pupils are legally enrolled in schools or junior colleges but spend most of their time preparing for competitive examinations through coaching institutes. Questions about attendance, student health and dilution of the importance of classroom learning have prompted demand for tighter control of coaching schools. These are legitimate concerns and need to be addressed. However, the solution is not to create an adversarial relationship between schools and coaching institutes. The best solution is to ensure that students benefit from both — whether we can design a system that promotes schools’ accountability without undermining access to quality academic support from coaching institutes to students who need it.

Government regulations provide an opportunity to alter the narrative from control to responsibility. Regulation that mandates price transparency, student welfare, grievance redressal and mental health assistance could go a long way in building greater trust in coaching institutes while ensuring that high-quality academic coaching continues to be accessible to students who need it. All regulatory legislation must also acknowledge the diversity of coaching institutes and avoid one-size-fits-all. The needs and realities of local community-based institutes are very different from those of large commercial operators.

The larger objective should be to create a seamless learning experience for students. Learners are often confronted with overlapping schedules, duplicate content and competing demands from multiple institutions of the education ecosystem. Coordination can lessen this strain, so students can concentrate on grasping subjects, developing confidence and preparing thoroughly for competitive exams.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has repeatedly emphasised the importance of promoting conceptual understanding and reducing rote learning. This objective cannot be achieved either by schools or coaching institutes on their own. It necessitates coordination across the educational ecosystem. The best way to assist students is when teachers, schools, parents and suppliers of additional academic support work together towards common objectives, rather than viewing each other as competition.

Therefore, the question before policymakers, educators, and parents is not whether coaching institutes should exist. Continuous demand for their service has already answered that. The real question is how schools and coaching institutes can work together to create a learning environment that is academically rigorous, emotionally supportive, and aligned with the aspirations of millions of students. That is the conversation worth having, and a marker for the direction education policy must take.