Education for All in India | School Education Policy Analysis | June 2026 |
 

is-school-education-in-india-truely-free.

Is School Education in India Truly Free?

The Shadow Economy of Private Coaching, Tuition Fees, and the Rural–Urban Divide

Analysis based on NSSO CMS:E 2025 (NSS Report No. 595)



10-page PDF ⬇ Download Full Report (PDF)

Abstract

India’s constitutional promise of free and compulsory education (Article 21A) is contradicted by ground reality. Using fresh evidence from the NSSO’s Comprehensive Modular Survey: Education 2025, this paper interrogates every dimension of private coaching in school education — its prevalence, drivers, rural–urban asymmetries, gender differences, income correlates, and cost burden — and asks the fundamental question: can school education in India be called ‘free’ when households spend an average of ₹22,024 per child annually, with coaching alone accounting for 40.7%?

Key Figures at a Glance

  • 27% School students attending private coaching in 2025: NSSO CMS:E 2025
  • ₹22K Average annual household spend per student including coaching: NSSO CMS:E 2025
  • 40.7% Share of education spend consumed by private coaching alone: NSSO CMS:E 2025
  • 1 lakh+ Single-teacher schools still operating across India: UDISE+ 2024–25

Rural–Urban Coaching Divide

Urban students access private coaching at consistently higher rates than rural students at every educational level. The gap is most severe at higher secondary level — the threshold to competitive examinations — where urban participation (44.6%) exceeds rural (33.1%) by 11.5 percentage points.

Educational Level Rural (%) Urban (%) All India (%) Gap (pp)
Pre-primary 10.7 13.6 11.6 2.9
Primary 21.6 26.6 22.9 5.0
Middle 29.1 31.0 29.6 1.9
Secondary 36.7 40.2 37.8 3.5
Higher Secondary 33.1 44.6 37.0 11.5
All Levels 25.5 30.7 27.0 5.2
Source: NSSO CMS:E 2025, Statement 3.1.

“It is a matter of shame that private tuition exists in India at the primary level of education.”

— Prof. Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in Economics, 2017

Key Findings

  • School education is not free. Households spend ₹13,051 per student (excluding coaching), rising to ₹22,024 including coaching — of which 40.7% is private coaching alone.
  • Government school families pay twice. They pay taxes funding government schools, then pay again for coaching to compensate for what those schools fail to deliver — spending 29–46% of their education budget on coaching versus 8–20% for private school families.
  • Rural coaching costs are lower but proportionally heavier. Urban households spend ₹13,026 on coaching; rural households ₹7,066 — but coaching consumes 44.7% of rural education spend versus 35.3% for urban.
  • Structural failures drive demand. Over 1 lakh single-teacher schools, teacher maldistribution (2.65 lakh rural deficit), para-teacher quality gaps, and non-teaching duties are policy failures, not market responses.
  • Even the poorest households invest in coaching — confirming it is perceived as necessity, not luxury — exposing the hollowness of the constitutional free-education promise.

Read the Full Report

Policy Recommendations

  • Eliminate single-teacher schools within five years through teacher redeployment, cluster school models, and financial incentives for rural postings.
  • Reform the teacher transfer system using transparent, data-driven policies to break union-driven urban teacher concentration.
  • Mandate and enforce prohibition on non-teaching duties for teachers during school hours.
  • Regulate the coaching industry through mandatory registration, fee disclosure, teacher qualification norms, and outcome transparency. The January 2024 Government guidelines are a starting point; enforcement is the challenge.
  • Recognise and integrate free online education platforms (DIKSHA, quality YouTube channels) into the formal educational support ecosystem.
  • Redesign board  and  entrance  examinations  —  as  NEP  2020  envisions  —  to  assess  conceptual understanding, reducing the examination-coaching premium.
  • Address hidden costs: transport subsidies, uniform allowances, and stationery provisions must reach all enrolled children, not just those on paper.
  • Commission a longitudinal panel study tracking students from primary through higher secondary to assess the actual impact of coaching on learning outcomes and life trajectories

 Suggested Readings and References

  • Azam,   M.   (2016).   Private   Tutoring:   Evidence   from   India.   Review   of   Development   Economics,   20(4),   739–61. doi.org/10.1111/rode.12256
  • Bray, M. (2014). The Impact of Shadow Education on Student Academic Achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(3), 381–89. doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9325-x
  • Byun, S.Y., Chung, H.J. & Baker, D.P. (2018). Global Patterns of the Use of Shadow Education. Research in the Sociology of Education, 20, 75–105.
  • Choudhury, P.K., Gill, A.S. & Kumar, A. (2024). What Drives Demand for Private Tutoring in Secondary Education? Evidence from India. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 26(3), 816–39. doi.org/10.1007/s40847-023-00285-2
  • Dongre, A.A. & Tewary, V. (2015). Impact of Private Tutoring on Learning Levels: Evidence from India. Economic & Political Weekly, 50(41), 72–80.
  • GoI (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Education, Government of India. education.gov.in/nep/about-nep
  • Gupta, A. (2023). Exposing the ‘Shadow’: An Empirical Scrutiny of Private Tutoring in India. Educational Review, 75(3), 394–410. doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1934391
  • IIT Council (2015). Report of the Committee to Examine the JEE System. New Delhi: GoI.
  • Jha,    S.K.    (2023).    The    Three    E’s    of    Private    Tuition    in    India.    Journal    of    Education,    203(3),    423–32. doi.org/10.1177/00220574211072439
  • Kumar, I. & Chowdhury, I.R. (2021). Shadow Education in India: Participation and Socioeconomic Determinants. Journal of South Asian Development, 16(2), 244–72. doi.org/10.1177/09731741211023286
  • NSSO (2025). Comprehensive Modular Survey: Education (CMS:E), NSS 80th Round, NSS Report No. 595. National Statistical Office, MoSPI, Government of India. microdata.gov.in/NADA/index.php/catalog/255
  • Sarkar, N. & Sharma, A. (2025). Regulating Coaching Centres: Reform Paradoxes. Economic & Political Weekly, 60(37), 21–24.
  • Sen, A.K. (2017). Private Tuition at Primary Level a Shame. Press Trust of India.
  • Tilak, J.B.G. (2023). Education Fads in India. Social Change, 53(4), 534–42. doi.org/10.1177/00490857231203474
  • Tilak, J.B.G. & Kumar, A.G. (2026). Competitive Individualism: Private Coaching at the School Level. Economic & Political Weekly, LXI(22), 61–68, May 30, 2026.
  • UDISE+ (2024–25). Unified District Information System for Education Plus. Ministry of Education, GoI. udiseplus.gov.in