One-Third of Indian School Students Now Use Private Coaching, Govt Survey Finds

(INDIA) Nearly one in three school students now takes private coaching, according to new government data that puts numbers to a trend many parents already feel at home. The latest Comprehensive Modular Survey on Education 2025 shows about 33% of schoolchildren receive paid help outside school. The Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation released the findings in August 2025, drawing on the 80th round of the National Sample Survey.

The report is based on over 52,000 households and nearly 58,000 students interviewed through Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews. It offers a detailed picture of how families plan, pay, and sacrifice for learning as the new school reforms roll out under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2024–2025.

Rising use of private coaching by grade

The survey paints a steady rise in after-school study support across all grades.

• Secondary and higher secondary students lead the way, with about 38% taking private coaching—up from around 30% in 2017–18.
• Middle school participation climbed from 22% to 30%.
• Primary level participation rose from 16% to 23%.
• Even at pre-primary level, participation holds at about 12% nationally.

The pattern is clear: as exams and competition grow sharper with age, more families turn to private lessons to keep pace.

Regional and urban–rural differences

Geography matters for coaching take-up.

• East: 59% of students enrolled in private coaching—more than double older national figures.
• North East: 25%.
• West: 23%.
• North: 15%.
• South: 12%.

Urban areas drive higher usage overall: 30.7% of urban students take private coaching compared to 25.5% in rural areas. While the gap exists, the rural figure shows demand spreading beyond bigger towns.

School type and household spending

School type and spending shape decisions on coaching.

• Government schools enroll 55.9% of students nationwide, with a stronger footprint in rural areas (66%).
• Private unaided schools account for 31.9% of enrollment and are more common in urban centers.

Spending differences are large:

• Families with children in private schools spend nearly nine times more on education—about ₹25,002 per student annually.
• Families with children in government schools spend about ₹2,863 per student each year.

Households already spending more on fees, books, and devices often add paid tutoring to secure exam results.

Coaching costs, funding sources, and financial strain

Money pressures go beyond school bills.

• The CMS Education Survey 2025 shows the average annual spend on private coaching for higher secondary students is ₹6,384 nationally.
• Urban families report higher coaching outlays overall: ₹3,988 per student each year versus ₹1,793 in rural households.
• At the higher secondary level, city costs climb to ₹9,950 per student on coaching, while rural costs average ₹4,548.

In eastern states such as Bihar, West Bengal, and Odisha, households often spend more on coaching than on formal schooling itself. Behind these numbers:

• 95% of students rely on family funds for education.
• Only 1.2% benefit from government scholarships.

When help is scarce, families dig into savings, borrow from relatives, or cut other expenses to pay coaching fees.

Important: coaching bills can match or exceed total school spending in some regions, creating deep budget strains for families with multiple schoolchildren.

Survey highlights: a decade of steady growth

• National coaching participation: ~33% across school levels.
• Secondary and higher secondary: from ~30% (2017–18) to 38% (2025).
• Middle and primary: now 30% and 23% respectively.
• Regional spread: 59% (East), 25% (North East), 23% (West), 15% (North), 12% (South).
• Urban vs rural: 30.7% vs 25.5%.
• School spending: ₹25,002 (private unaided) vs ₹2,863 (government) per student annually.
• Coaching pressure highest at higher grades: urban higher secondary students face nearly ₹10,000 a year on average.

Equity concerns

The spending patterns raise a hard question: who gets left out as coaching costs grow?

• In the East, coaching participation and costs are highest; many households spend more on tutoring than on school. For a class 12 student in a mid-sized town in Bihar or West Bengal, yearly coaching fees can match or surpass the total spend on school fees, transport, uniforms, and books.
• When families bear that bill for two or three children, other needs get postponed. The fact that 95% of students depend on family money shows why even small fee hikes can push households to the edge.

Urban–rural equity:

• Urban families pay more overall and have more providers to choose from and better ability to compare lesson quality.
• Rural households might pay less but face fewer options. If a village has just one coaching center, families either accept what is offered or send children to town—adding travel time and cost.

The CMS Education 2025 data does not rate provider quality, but the spending and participation figures point to a fast-growing market that is uneven and hard for parents to judge.

Stakeholder views

• Government officials: stress improved public schooling, teacher support, and better learning materials under the NEP as the solution.
• Parents: especially in cities, see coaching as a safety net for board exams and entrance tests and are reluctant to drop it.
• Experts: worry a booming coaching trade deepens gaps between those who can pay and those who cannot.
• Industry voices: report rising demand, particularly in the East where participation leads the country.

Policy responses and next steps

The government has increased education funding to support reform.

• The Union Budget 2025–26 allocates ₹1,28,650 crore for education, including ₹78,572 crore for school education and programs such as PM SHRI to upgrade schools.
• The NEP aims to reduce rote learning, promote flexible pathways, and expand tech use in classrooms. In theory, richer classroom work could reduce demand for outside lessons. So far, the data show families are still reaching for paid help.

The survey offers pointers rather than prescriptions:

1. Improve core classroom teaching so more students reach grade-level outcomes without extra lessons.
2. Expand need-based support—current scholarship coverage (1.2%) is too small to soften rising costs.
3. Focus on the East, where coaching is most common and costly relative to school spending.
4. Address rural access and quality, where fewer providers limit choice.
5. Consider basic rules for the coaching sector so parents can judge price and quality with less guesswork.

Practical tips for families

For those weighing choices, the survey suggests actionable steps:

• Check total yearly costs, not just monthly coaching fees—include transport, materials, and time.
• Compare the school’s own support (extra classes, doubt sessions, peer groups) before paying outside.
• If fees strain budgets, ask providers about group discounts or limited-subject packages instead of full bundles.
• Track results by subject and drop paid lessons that do not improve weekly test scores or which increase student stress.

Final takeaways

The Comprehensive Modular Survey anchors the public debate with hard numbers. It shows where private coaching has become routine, where it is still rare, and where money pressure hits hardest. The survey also sets the baseline for judging NEP changes in classrooms.

The Ministry of Education will carry forward policy work, while the National Sample Survey under MoSPI will track outcomes year by year. For full details and the official release, consult the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoSPI) portal.

Private coaching is not new, but the CMS Education 2025 confirms its scale in simple, clear terms. One in three school students now gets outside help. The share is highest in the East, steady across cities and villages, and strongest in upper grades where exams carry the most weight. Families pay most of the bill, scholarships reach very few, and urban costs outpace rural costs by a wide margin. The NEP promises to improve daily learning and reduce the need for extra lessons. Until that promise turns into classroom change, the numbers suggest parents will keep paying for a second system after the school day ends.