Coaching center are right in taking the credit?
The story of education in Kashmir is not just about students, schools, and results, it is also about a parallel system that has quietly become the real engine of learning, the coaching centers. This phenomenon did not emerge overnight. To my memory, it all began around the year 2001–2002, when Srinagar had only two to three coaching centers namely BCI and BCC, located in Bhagat Barzulla and Exchange Road. At the time, few teachers with remarkable reputations, like Bashir Sir and Farooq Sir for chemistry, Tantray Sir, Prince Sir for Physics, and others for life science, attracted students from across the Kashmir. These teachers were not merely instructors, they were mentors whose guidance often determined academic success.
Over the past two and a half decades, however, the landscape has transformed dramatically. Srinagar alone now hosts couple of dozens of mega coaching centers, and every district and tehsil headquarters in Kashmir has multiple coaching centers. While the exact figures are elusive, it would not be an exaggeration to estimate that nearly 100 coaching centers operate across the Valley, providing instruction for classes 9 through 12 as well as NEET and JEE preparation. Each center often runs two sessions daily, morning and afternoon, likely hosting more than 500 students across both sessions. By this calculation, roughly more than 50,000 students actively participate in coaching programs throughout the year, attending schools only for practical examinations. Senior lecturers, speaking anonymously, have observed that in many cases, less than 5 percent of science students regularly attend school; these are typically the students who cannot afford private coaching.
This evolution has not only changed the geography of education in Kashmir but has also shifted the locus of learning itself. Today, schools largely exist on paper. They maintain nominal enrollment and record attendance, but the reality is starkly different, students spend their days learning in coaching centers, where syllabus coverage is systematic, concepts are clarified, and exam strategies are rigorously imparted. A typical example of a dummy admission can be, a Class 12 student officially enrolled in a Higher Secondary School in Tangdhar, Uri, or Gurez but living in Srinagar for coaching. The school, fulfilling its administrative requirements, records the student as present, while actual instruction occurs entirely in coaching centers.
In this environment, coaching centers naturally claim credit for student performance. They organize structured lessons, mock examinations, and revision schedules, often outperforming schools in terms of preparation quality. Parents, recognizing the limitations of the formal system, invest significant sums in these centers, seeing them as essential to securing academic success. Schools, in contrast, continue to survive on dummy admissions and inflated attendance records, projecting an image of functioning institutions while their actual contribution to active learning is minimal.
The consequences are significant. Education, which is meant to be an equalizer, has been commodified. This creates a stark divide, quality education becomes contingent on private funding rather than access to public institutions. Inequality deepens, and opportunities for social mobility narrow, as students in under-resourced schools cannot compete with peers who receive sustained coaching year-round.
Critics often accuse coaching centers of exploiting the system for profit. While they do charge fees, such a critique ignores the underlying failure of schools to provide required education for competitive examinations. Coaching centers respond to a genuine need; without their intervention, tens of thousands of students would lack access to structured learning. Parents decisions to invest in coaching are rational, aimed at ensuring outcomes in a system where formal schooling cannot be relied upon. The success of coaching centers, therefore, is as much a reflection of systemic failure as it is of pedagogical skill.
There is also a lesson to be learned from coaching centers themselves. Their methods, structured tests, regular revisions, personalized guidance, are effective precisely because they focus on learning outcomes. Schools can integrate these techniques, improving teaching quality without privatizing education. Coaching need not be adversarial to the public system; it can complement it, provided schools regain their central role and ensure equitable access for all students.
Central to this discussion are the students themselves, who balance complex syllabi, personal study, and daily coaching sessions. Their diligence, effort, and perseverance deserve recognition. While coaching centers facilitate learning, students remain the ones who absorb, apply, and succeed. Credit for academic achievement must therefore be appropriately allocated, schools cannot claim results earned elsewhere, and coaching centers role must be acknowledged. The current imbalance, where learning occurs outside formal institutions yet schools take administrative credit, obscures the truth of where education actually happens.
School education system needs critical reformation. Until these reforms are enacted, the paradox of Kashmir’s education system will persist. Students will continue to learn primarily outside schools, coaching centers will remain the primary source of instruction, and schools will continue to serve administrative functions. Recognizing the role of coaching centers is not an endorsement of privatization; it is an acknowledgment of reality. Education must be measured by learning, not mere attendance. Only then can Kashmir ensure that all students, regardless of economic background, receive the knowledge and skills they deserve and that schools reclaim their rightful role as the cornerstone of learning.
Dr. Zainabi is a teacher and researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora J&K.
