The recently issued guidelines by the Ministry of Education, stipulating that coaching centres cannot enroll students below the age of 16, have sparked concerns and discussions within coaching institutions across Delhi-NCR. Among the worries expressed by these institutions are the potential escalation in academic pressure on students, financial losses for coaching centres, and the looming threat of job insecurity for numerous teachers.
The guidelines have been introduced to establish a legal framework and address the unregulated growth of private coaching institutes. According to the new regulations, coaching centres are prohibited from engaging tutors with qualifications below graduation. Additionally, they are not allowed to make misleading promises or guarantee ranks or good marks to parents during the enrollment process. Moreover, the guidelines specify that coaching centres cannot admit students below the age of 16.
Officials from Vidyamandir coaching centre in Noida have voiced their concerns, particularly highlighting the potential adverse impact on students preparing for highly competitive exams such as JEE Mains and Advanced. They argue that a significant number of students reach the age of 16 while still in Class XI. Given the complexity and intensity of these examinations, coaching students effectively within a one-year timeframe becomes a challenging proposition. The officials suggest that the government should consider increasing the number of attempts allowed for students to sit for the JEE exam. Currently, eligibility typically extends to students in Class XII or those who have already graduated.
The guidelines issued by the Union Education Ministry for coaching centres aim to address issues such as rising student suicides, high fees, and mental pressure. The guidelines cover various aspects, including conditions for registration, fee structures, and penalties for violations.
Conditions for Registration:
Tutor Qualification: Coaching centres cannot engage tutors with qualifications below graduation.
Misleading Promises: Coaching centres cannot make misleading promises or guarantee ranks or good marks.
Age Restriction: Students below 16 years of age cannot be enrolled, and enrollment can only occur after secondary school examination.
Advertising Standards: Coaching centres are prohibited from participating in the publication of misleading advertisements regarding coaching quality, facilities, or results.
Space Requirement: Coaching centres with less than the minimum space requirement per student must register.
Website Requirements: Coaching centres must have a website with updated details on tutor qualifications, courses, duration, hostel facilities, fees, easy exit and refund policies, and success rates.
Class Scheduling: Coaching classes cannot be conducted during the institutions/schools’ hours.
Fee Structure
Supply of Materials: Coaching centres must provide prospectus, notes, and other materials to enrolled students without additional fees.
Refund Policy: Students leaving a course in the middle of the prescribed period will be refunded on a pro-rata basis within 10 days.
Hostel Fees: If staying in the coaching centre’s hostel, students will receive a refund for hostel fees and mess fees.
Fee Increase: Coaching centres cannot increase fees for a course once enrollment has been made, and the duration of the course cannot be extended.
Impact on School Attendance:
No Impact on Attendance: Coaching classes must not impact school attendance.
Assessment/Test Days: There should be no assessment/test on the day after the weekly off.
Leave During Festivals: Coaching centres should customize leave during important festivals to allow students to connect with their families.
Penalties
In case of violations:
First Offense: Rs 25,000/- penalty.
Second Offense: Rs. 1,00,000/- penalty.
Subsequent Offense: Revocation of registration.
Criticisms
Some stakeholders, like Keshav Agarwal, President of the Educators Society in Delhi, express concerns about the feasibility of these rules for many coaching centres.
The guidelines do not explicitly address online classes, leaving uncertainty about how online students would be governed. Furthermore, questions arise about whether the limit on the number of students includes online students.
Concerns are raised about restrictions on students opting for open schooling and those taking a gap year for exam preparation.
The guidelines may need further refinement to ensure inclusivity and practicality for a diverse range of students and coaching centres.
As the coaching institutions grapple with the implications of these guidelines, there is a call for a more nuanced approach to balance the regulatory objectives with the practical challenges faced by both students and coaching centres. Finding a middle ground that ensures the quality of education and reduces academic stress while addressing the concerns of coaching institutions is crucial in shaping effective and equitable policies for the education sector.
The recent guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education, particularly the provision preventing coaching centers from enrolling students below the age of 16, have elicited various concerns and viewpoints within the coaching institutions across Delhi-NCR.
The management head at a coaching center in Kalu Sarai, which caters to both IIT and NEET aspirants, has voiced apprehensions about the potential unintended consequences of these guidelines. The concern is centered around the possibility of increased academic pressure on students rather than the intended reduction. Expressing the complexities of preparing students adequately for highly competitive exams within a limited time frame, the management suggests that an ideal preparation period should commence as early as class IX. This is attributed to the perceived inadequacy of the regular school curriculum in addressing the rigorous demands of competitive exams like JEE and NEET. Moreover, there is a worry that the new rule might adversely impact the inflow of students, consequently affecting the business viability of coaching institutes.
According to the management at this coaching center, a significant portion of their student population, approximately 40%, falls below the age of 16, primarily comprising students in classes IX and X. The concern extends to students hailing from smaller villages who depend on scholarships to pursue their dreams in medical and engineering fields. The implementation of the new age-related rule is anticipated to pose additional challenges for such students.
Another perspective from the managing director of a coaching institute in Paschim Vihar suggests that if students are unable to enroll in coaching centers due to the new regulation, they might resort to alternative options such as private tuition or online arrangements. The managing director highlights that coaching institutes often admit students as early as class VII or VIII, with a subset of younger students (classes VI-VIII) seeking coaching specifically for mathematics. The institute estimates that around 10% to 20% of their enrolled students fall below the age of 16.
Perspectives from Students and Parents
Students who have experienced coaching at an early age share their insights. One such student cleared NEET in 2023, mentioning that they began coaching in class IX at the age of 14. The student acknowledges the potential benefits of early coaching but also recognizes the variability of individual preferences.
Another NEET aspirant at AIIMS, Delhi, joined a coaching center at the age of 14 and reflected on the additional workload and opportunities for Olympiads offered by coaching centers. This student expresses skepticism about the necessity of the regulation, suggesting that it might not be essential for everyone.
A representative from the All India Parents Association commended the government’s initiative to reduce academic pressure on students but emphasized the need for a balanced approach. The concern is raised about potential challenges in the implementation of the guidelines and the necessity for the education system to be robust enough to alleviate the need for additional coaching. The overarching sentiment is that while reducing pressure is commendable, the regulatory framework should be mindful of the diverse needs and challenges faced by students and coaching institutes alike.
The concern that such guidelines might lead to unintended consequences is echoed by coaching centers, emphasizing the potential adverse impact on the inflow of students. The argument is that these regulations could affect not only the business viability of coaching institutes but also hinder the aspirations of students from smaller villages who rely on scholarships to pursue their dreams in medical and engineering fields.
The perspective from students and parents adds another layer to this debate. Students who have experienced coaching at an early age share their positive experiences, highlighting the potential benefits of early exposure to specialized guidance. Their viewpoints suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable, as individual preferences and circumstances can vary widely.
On the other side of the spectrum, the managing director of a coaching institute in Paschim Vihar speculates that students unable to enroll in coaching centers might seek alternative avenues such as private tuition or online arrangements which can also be very expensive and not an option available to all. This raises questions about whether the guidelines, while attempting to regulate coaching centers, might inadvertently push students towards less regulated or monitored educational resources.
While the government’s initiative to reduce academic pressure on students is commendable, the concerns raised by stakeholders should not be ignored. The age restriction might inadvertently limit access to valuable educational resources for students who genuinely benefit from early coaching. Instead of a blanket restriction, a more nuanced approach that considers the diversity of students’ needs and circumstances might be necessary.
Furthermore, the concerns about the implementation of these guidelines and the need for a strong education system resonate strongly. Strengthening the regular school curriculum to adequately prepare students for competitive exams is a worthy goal, but it requires comprehensive reforms and a holistic approach that goes beyond the regulation of coaching centers.
In conclusion, while the Ministry’s guidelines aim to address a legitimate concern regarding academic pressure, a balance must be struck. An inclusive and flexible approach that accommodates the diverse needs of students, coaching centers, and the education system itself is essential. It’s imperative to foster an environment that supports students in pursuing their academic aspirations without inadvertently stifling their opportunities for growth and success.
Written by – Nikita Tiwari
Edited by – Shamonnita Banerjee
