New Delhi – Student leader Neha Bora has asserted that the creation of the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) have principally advantaged private coaching enterprises, according to a report published in The Hindu. Bora, who heads a student organization, made the remarks during a public discussion on education reforms, contending that these policy shifts have diverted attention and resources from public education toward commercial coaching services.
What Happened
Speaking at a forum on education policy, Bora argued that the NTA’s administration of high-stakes national entrance examinations — notably the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for engineering and the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for medicine — has produced a standardized, predictable testing environment that private coaching centers can readily exploit to market their preparatory programs. She said the NEP’s emphasis on multidisciplinary learning and flexible curricula has not, in practice, reduced students’ dependence on external tutoring; instead, it has created new avenues for coaching institutes to package and sell specialized guidance.
The Hindu’s national edition covered Bora’s statement, noting that she highlighted the growing reliance on coaching centers among aspirants for competitive exams. The report did not cite specific enrollment figures or revenue data for the coaching sector, but Bora’s comments have generated discussion on social media platforms about the need for stronger public support mechanisms to level the playing field for students from less affluent backgrounds.
Why It Matters
Bora’s critique touches on a long-standing and intensifying debate over equity in access to higher education in India. The coaching industry, concentrated in hubs such as Kota, Hyderabad, and Delhi, has grown into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. Families often spend significant portions of their income on preparatory courses, creating a de facto prerequisite for success in examinations that determine admission to premier institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
Analysis: The centralization of testing under the NTA was intended to bring transparency, uniformity, and efficiency to the examination process. However, critics argue that a single, high-stakes national exam inevitably narrows the curriculum to a teachable, testable syllabus — precisely the material that coaching centers are best equipped to drill. If the NTA’s mandate was to reduce the burden of multiple state-level exams, the unintended consequence may have been to consolidate the market for test preparation, making it easier for commercial players to scale standardized coaching products.
Analysis: The NEP 2020, meanwhile, envisions a shift from rote learning to critical thinking, multidisciplinary study, and reduced curricular load. Yet the policy’s implementation timeline and the persistence of high-stakes entrance exams mean that students continue to face intense pressure to perform on standardized tests. Coaching institutes have adapted by offering “NEP-aligned” modules, bridge courses, and specialized test series, effectively monetizing the transition. Without a parallel expansion of quality public schooling, free or subsidized test-preparation resources, and robust career counseling in government schools, the policy’s equity goals risk being undermined by the very market forces it does not directly regulate.
Background and Context
The National Testing Agency was established in 2017 as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education to conduct entrance examinations for higher education institutions. Before its formation, multiple agencies — including the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and individual universities — administered their own tests. The NTA now conducts JEE Main, NEET-UG, the Common University Entrance Test (CUET), and several other national-level exams.
The National Education Policy, approved in July 2020, is the first comprehensive overhaul of India’s education framework since 1986. It proposes a 5+3+3+4 curricular structure, emphasis on foundational literacy and numeracy, vocational integration from Grade 6, and a single regulator for higher education. The policy also calls for the phasing out of affiliated colleges in favor of multidisciplinary universities and envisions a National Assessment Centre (PARAKH) to set standards.
Despite these structural ambitions, the coaching industry has continued to expand. Industry estimates — though not cited in The Hindu’s report — have placed the market size at several billion dollars annually, with Kota alone hosting hundreds of thousands of students each year. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift to online coaching platforms, further lowering geographic barriers and increasing the reach of commercial providers.
Student organizations and education activists have long argued that the proliferation of coaching centers reflects systemic failures in school education: inadequate teacher training, outdated curricula, insufficient laboratory and library facilities, and a lack of individualized academic support in government schools. They contend that until public schools can deliver the conceptual depth and problem-solving practice required for competitive exams, students will remain dependent on private tutoring.
What to Watch Next
Several developments could shape the trajectory of this debate:
– Regulatory scrutiny of coaching centers: State governments, including Rajasthan and Bihar, have introduced or proposed guidelines to regulate coaching institutes — capping fees, mandating mental-health support, and limiting class hours. Enforcement and impact remain uneven.
– Expansion of public test-preparation initiatives: The central government’s “SWAYAM” platform and state-level programs like Tamil Nadu’s “Naan Mudhalvan” offer free online courses and mentorship. Scaling these to match the intensity and personalization of private coaching is a key challenge.
– Potential reforms to entrance examinations: Discussions about reducing the weight of single-exam scores, introducing multi-dimensional assessment (including school grades, portfolios, and interviews), or staggering exam schedules could alter the coaching business model.
– Implementation of NEP’s assessment reforms: The policy’s vision of formative, competency-based assessment — if realized — could diminish the premium on high-stakes testing. The timeline and fidelity of implementation across states will be critical.
– Judicial interventions: Courts have periodically heard petitions on coaching-center regulation, exam fairness, and student suicides in coaching hubs. Future rulings could compel policy changes.
Conclusion
Neha Bora’s statement, as reported by The Hindu, encapsulates a widely shared concern among student advocates: that structural reforms in testing and education policy, while well-intentioned, have not yet disrupted the commercial coaching ecosystem — and may have inadvertently strengthened it. The persistence of a high-stakes, single-exam gateway to elite institutions, combined with gaps in public school capacity, sustains a parallel education market that privileges families with financial means. Addressing this dynamic will require more than curricular redesign; it demands sustained investment in public schooling, transparent regulation of the coaching industry, and a reimagining of how merit is assessed in a diverse and unequal society.
Sources
– The Hindu – “NTA and NEP have only helped private coaching institutions flourish, says student leader Neha Bora.” https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/nta-and-nep-have-only-helped-private-coaching-institutions-flourish-says-student-leader-neha-bora/article71370349.ece
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
