The tragic incident of July 27, 2024 in which Shreya Yadav, Tanya Soni, and Nevin Dalwin, three civil service aspirants, lost their lives due to the flooding of a basement in a coaching institute in Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, triggered a wave of shock and outrage across the country.
The coaching industry in India, often referred to as an “epidemic,” has become a booming business driven by the intense pressure on students to excel in competitive exams. The demand for coaching centres has hit the roof, and their allure is intensified by the skilful marketing of their success stories, and their ability to command a range of tutors or instructors, who are widely acclaimed by successive waves of successful candidates.
This incident is symptomatic of a larger malaise and brings to the mind of the writer a parallel with the tutoring industry in China, which underwent a series of crackdowns and reforms following the manifold problems that had emerged over the past many years, very similar to what we witness in India.
In July 2021, Xi Jinping announced the Double Reduction policy. Here “double” refers to doing away with unauthorised after-school classes and reducing homework burden on students. This policy was expected to bring certain outcomes, such as reducing families’ spending on tutoring, and improving compulsory education. Reportedly, this policy had been tested in nine municipalities including Beijing, Shanghai, and Jiangsu for 12 months before being rolled out throughout the country.
The policy unleashed a huge debate in China on the issues and impact of the phenomenon of the coaching industry and dominated the social media spaces for a considerable period. There are conflicting reports on this issue. Some describe it as a “sudden” measure, while some media report that it was a well-planned move. Although these new regulations were implemented after careful consideration, the announcement seemed to come out of nowhere for the public.
In announcing the policy, Xi Jinping emphasised that a “conscientious industry” should not be driven solely by profits – i.e., education cannot become a business. He censured the “chaos” in the tutoring industry, describing it as “a stubborn disease that is difficult to control.” Critics argue that that the imposition of regulations on the coaching industry was part of broader political agenda to crackdown on the private sector and technological firms, regain control over education sector, spur social changes conducive to its long-term stability such as increased birth-rates. The coaching industry was just one of the targets in a long list of industry crackdown in China. Tim Van Gardingner argues that that the phenomenon is already having a profound effect on the international education operations in China and also on the future flow of students into educational institutions abroad. Critics also state that this would have an adverse effect on China’s top position on international academic rankings such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
It has also been pointed out in social media debates that these measures have exposed the shortcomings of the education system in China. In the first instance, the study of English language in state schools severely lack speaking practice. There is also a widespread feeling that the Chinese education system lay emphasis on rote memorisation of facts and not on critical or analytical thinking, creativity or originality. The Chinese education system disregards the child’s individuality, hobbies and passion. It focuses on the test scores as the single criterion in the assessment of the students.
In a speech at the National Education Conference held on September 10, 2018, Xi Jinping, called for a “reversal of the tendency of utilitarianism in education”, advocating the promotion of “quality education” rather than focusing on test scores, promotion rates, or the number of research papers, as yardsticks of success.
At another level, parental expectations, in tandem with the desirable academic success, have also driven the tutoring industry. This has turned the Chinese education system into an exam-based education system with high drop-out rates. In a speech delivered to visiting members of the education and medical sectors at the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference held on March 6, 2021, Xi Jinping highlighted the psychological issues that children develop due to an excessive emphasis on test scores. The need of the hour was to focus not on “scores,” but on fostering a “healthy and mature personality.”
These psychological problems often lead to rise of suicide rates in Chinese elementary and secondary schools, as pointed out by a study conducted by a Chinese scholar, Xuan Guanglin in 2023. The crackdown on the tutoring industry has been interpreted as a crucial measure to curb “disorderly capital expansion,” reduce soaring education costs, and address the “for-profit” framework and inconsistent quality of after-school tutoring. In this view, these tutoring institutions are indirectly responsible for disrupting the normal order of education and teaching in schools. These factors in the tutoring industry are perceived as barriers or impediments to the government’s goal of ensuring greater and more equitable access to education, with a clear emphasis on prioritizing “social welfare” over “market stability.”
Also read: Delhi Coaching Centre Deaths: A Stark Reminder of Ruin Created in the Name of Urbanisation
Such has been the context and the perspectives, amidst which the Chinese government issued the ban on the “coaching industry”.
In eerie parallels, parental and student hopes, the massive numbers of the aspirants, and therefore the profits involved in this “business”, has led to a nexus between coaching centres and government officials in India, where corruption and negligence have become rampant, compromising the safety and well-being of students.
The recent tragic incident in New Delhi, merely the latest in a series of tragic loss of lives and mental well-being of millions of young students, has also put the spotlight on many deep-seated and troubling issues within India’s education system, and the consequences of those lacunae which have, among other things, paved the way for this coaching industry.
The explosive proliferation of the coaching centres, as has been highlighted in recent reportage, has been matched by a corresponding rise in government revenue collected through the Goods and Services Tax (GST). According to data presented to the Rajya Sabha, the total GST collected from coaching centers has more than doubled over the past five years, growing from Rs 2,240.73 crore in 2019-20 to Rs 5,517.45 crore in 2023-24. While this increase in revenue might seem like a positive development from a financial perspective, it reveals a far more troublesome and darker reality: the emergence of a variety of vested, rapacious interests in this booming coaching industry, spanning the nexus between the official agencies and the service providers at one end, (which explains their negligence in enforcing building codes and safety standards) to the hapless and often helpless consumers, at the other.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
Comparing the Indian and Chinese cases
The parallels between the coaching industry in India and the private tutoring industry in China are striking. In both countries, education has become highly commodified, with parents and students willing to invest significant amounts of time and money to secure a competitive edge.
In China, the intense competition for admission to prestigious middle schools and universities through High School Entrance Examination (HSEE) and National College Entrance Examination (NSEE), better known as the Gaokao exam has created a high demand for tutoring. This demand for supplemental education outside of regular school hours, led to the proliferation of tutoring centres, private tutors, and online platforms offering specialised instructions in subjects like Mathematics, Chinese, English, and the Natural Sciences. Distinguished performances in fields such as sports, piano, painting, and other related areas, which can provide access to key middle schools in China, fall under the purview of non-academic tutoring, leading to a boom in coaching in these areas as well. Interestingly, the Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centres issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India in January 2024 also emphasises starting non-academic tutoring for balanced development of the candidates.
The tutoring industry in China also sparked widespread concerns about the impact of this intense academic pressure on students’ mental health and the perpetuation of social inequality. In response to these concerns, the Chinese government implemented a ban on ‘for-profit tutoring classes’ of school curriculum subjects in China in July, 2021 through the双减 (Shuāng jiǎn) or double-reduction policy. The objective was twofold: easing the burden on families, including overworked students and parents struggling to pay tuition, and curbing what it deemed “disorderly expansion of capital” in what had become a $100 billion education industry. According to the PRC’s Ministry of Education, by the end of February 2022, the number of companies providing offline tutoring services had plummeted 92% to 9,728, from about 124,000 before the crackdown in July 2021. Despite the government’s efforts, the industry has continued to operate underground, indicating the deep-rooted nature of the problem.
According to statistics by the Macquairie Group, the industry was worth $96 billion in 2019 and was predicted to double by 2023. Critics consider that this multi-billionaire industry was one of the ways through which China was sustaining its “economic miracle” and they have raised apprehensions as to how Xi Jinping will keep up with the pace of economic growth by killing this “golden-goose”.
In India as well, the craze for cracking exams like the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), college entrance examinations such as National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) and Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) has led to a surge in coaching institutes. These institutes promise to provide students with the tools and techniques necessary to succeed in these highly competitive exams. Sometimes the advertisements are misleading. Indian Civil services is one of the most sought-after jobs with less than 1% applicants making the cut. This leads to severe anxiety and stress among students. The burden of high expectations from parents, societal pressure, and the fear of failure often lead to devastating consequences, including mental health issues and, in extreme cases, suicide. Similar to the Double-Reduction policy, also known as, Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Burden and Off-Campus Training Burden of Students in Compulsory Education, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Government of India issued in January 2024, Guidelines for Regulation of Coaching Centres to tackle these problems. Both documents have been released in respective countries in response to the unregulated growth of private coaching centres, which had mushroomed in absence of clear guidelines. The new regulations provide a framework to control exorbitant fees demanded from students, reduce undue stress, and prevent various malpractices in the education sector.
The commercialisation of education through coaching centres has also exacerbated existing social inequalities. Coaching is an expensive endeavour, and families often spend a significant portion of their income on coaching. Some institutes charge exorbitant fees going upto Rs 2 lakhs per annum in India. In urban China, parents spend 25% of their income on child’s education. China’s lower-income households allocate 56.8% of their income towards their children’s education, while China’s higher-income households allocate 10.6%. In China, families spend as much as 12.84% of the family income – on average in child’s after-school tutoring a year. The financial strain is felt most acutely by families from lower-income backgrounds, who see coaching as a necessary investment for their children’s future. The result is a widening gap between those who can afford high-quality coaching and those who cannot, leading to an unequal playing field in competitive exams. Although China has the greatest number of billionaires, it also has 600 million people earning less than 1000 yuan per month.
Response of youth
The intense focus on academic achievement often comes at the expense of the mental well-being of students. Resorting to drugs and suicide are common results of competitiveness. The situation has also led to growing disillusionment among the youth. In China, this disillusionment has manifested in the form of new cultural attitudes such as 躺平 (tǎng píng), or “lying flat,” i.e., rejecting gruelling competition for a low desire life and 摆烂 (bǎi làn), which means accepting a deteriorating situation rather than trying to change it or “内卷 “, i.e., turning inward. These attitudes reflect a rejection of the relentless pursuit of success and a desire for a simpler, and less stressful life.
Lessons from the Chinese tutoring industry
The recent tragedy in Delhi has intensified calls for reform in the education system and better regulation of the coaching industry in India. There is a growing recognition that the current education system has failed to meet the needs of students. NEP 2020 has been designed for regular formative assessment for learning rather than the summative assessment. The government’s role in this crisis is critical, not only in terms of regulating the coaching industry but also in addressing the root causes of this competitive culture. India also needs to generate employment opportunities to solve the problems of employment, underemployment and skill mismatch and carry out reforms in education.
Although the Chinese and Indian systems are greatly different, the crackdown enforced by Xi Jinping can act as a reference point for India. India can consider adopting similar measures to those recently implemented by China to regulate its education sector.
Steps taken by the Chinese government include putting restrictions on setting up new for-profit institutions; mandatory conversion of K-12 subject tutoring companies into non-profit institutions; restrictions on foreign capital engagement in the sector; imposing restrictions on after-school tutoring on weekends and holidays; explicitly forbidding the kindergarten, primary and secondary school educators and researchers from participating in after-school tutoring activities and the establishment of national oversight.
The PRC government also mandated the use of standardised “contract templates” provided by the State Council’s education and administrative department while entering into agreements with participants or their guardians; made provisions for levying fines upto 100000 RMB for unlicensed tutoring services in country. Other reforms banned the teaching of foreign curricula, tightened scrutiny over the import of textbooks, and forbade the hiring of foreign teachers from outside China – all of which will severely impact overseas tutoring companies and startups as well as tighten China’s grip over what is taught in schools.
India too, like China, is trying to preserve space for holistic development beyond the classroom by keeping non-academic and extracurricular activities such as sports and arts beyond the purview of restrictions. For all the talk about China’s authoritarian system, their measures have not been able to put the genie back in the bottle. There are however important lessons to be learnt here. India needs to urgently curb the commercialisation of education, promote equal access, and prioritise the quality of learning in primary and middle schools.
Snigdha Konar is Research Associate and Assistant Director at the Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi. Her research interests include Chinese language and literature, social issues, and gender issues. She can be contacted at sgdkor@gmail.com.
