India constitutionally recognizes education as a right, yet access to quality schooling remains heavily mediated by purchasing power. The deeper issue lies in the steady erosion of confidence in public schools. Over decades, many government-run institutions have struggled with teacher vacancies, uneven infrastructure, large pupil-teacher ratios and modest learning outcomes, writes former IAS officer V.S.Pandey
Education in India is a non-profit activity as laid down in the National Education Policy document duly approved by Parliament. In the beginning of the new millennium, our parliament constitutionally guaranteed education as a fundamental right. Yet for millions of families across the country, quality schooling has increasingly become a costly private purchase rather than a publicly assured good. In city after city, parents confront spiraling private school fees — not merely tuition, but a maze of “development charges,” technology levies, transport fees, activity fees, smart-class fees, uniform mark-ups and assorted “miscellaneous” costs. The cumulative burden often rivals or exceeds annual household savings. I am aware of cases when parents of school going children had to shell out lakhs of rupees for transportation fee only. This unbridled squeeze of parents has been going on unchecked for decades now in our country and running schools has become one of the most lucrative businesses and a money multiplier.
Commercialization of education began in the mid nineties and gained so much momentum that it overwhelmed the system. Initially the professional education institutions imparting engineering, medical, management education started the trend by brazenly adopting the “for profit” formula and proliferated everywhere with southern states showing the way followed by the usual laggards. It reached its zenith when even the fully government funded institutions like IIM’s joined the race and started charging exorbitant fees, unmatched by even private operators, in the name of attaining self -sufficiency and so called “autonomy”. When attempts were made to curb this tendency, the so called “neo liberals” rose up in arms and declared “war” against the attempts to endanger the autonomy of these premier institutions. There has been rampant commercialization of educational landscape since then.
This was not simply a story about individual institutions charging more. It is about a structural transformation in how India understands and delivers education. Beginning with the professional education system, the menace soon spread to school education also. Across metropolitan centres and even tier-two towns, private school fees have risen at rates significantly above inflation. Many schools demand advance payments, annual hikes, and additional one-time capital charges. Though the law prohibits capitation fees, allegations of informal payments at the point of admission continue to surface.
Parents, particularly from middle-income backgrounds, find themselves squeezed. Public schools are often perceived — fairly or unfairly — as underperforming. Elite private schools are financially out of reach. The result is a captive demand for mid-tier private institutions that operate in a lightly regulated environment. Education, once a social equalizer, is functioning as a stratifier.
Our education policy framework clearly lays down that education is not for profit but unfortunately this noble idea has been practiced more in denial. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) sought to correct this imbalance. It guaranteed free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14, mandated norms for infrastructure and teacher qualifications, banned capitation fees, and required private schools to reserve 25 per cent seats for disadvantaged students. On paper, the framework is robust. In practice, implementation is abysmal.
State-level fee regulation committees exist but vary widely in effectiveness. Monitoring is weak, data transparency limited, and enforcement inconsistent. Schools often shift costs into non-tuition categories, escaping strict scrutiny. Reimbursements for RTE quota students are frequently delayed or inadequate, creating friction between private institutions and governments.
The outcome is paradoxical: India constitutionally recognizes education as a right, yet access to quality schooling remains heavily mediated by purchasing power.
The deeper issue lies in the steady erosion of confidence in public schools. Over decades, many government-run institutions have struggled with teacher vacancies, uneven infrastructure, large pupil-teacher ratios and modest learning outcomes. While there are notable success stories, the broader perception gap persists.
As more families exit public schools, political pressure to improve them diminishes. A feedback loop sets in: declining enrolment justifies reduced investment; reduced investment lowers quality further; and the private sector expands into the vacuum. This marketisation has effectively redefined schooling as a service industry rather than a public commitment.
India is not alone in grappling with public-private balance in education. Yet comparative experiences offer cautionary insights. In the Nordic countries, including Finland, schooling is overwhelmingly public, well-funded, and socially trusted. Private schools play a marginal role and are tightly regulated. Teachers are highly trained, curricula nationally coherent, and educational equity central to policy. As a result, quality schooling does not depend on parental income.
Contrast this with Chile, which experimented extensively with voucher-based private schooling. While choice expanded, socio-economic segregation deepened. Better-off families clustered in better-resourced schools, while disadvantaged students remained concentrated in weaker institutions. The Chilean experience underscores that unregulated market competition can entrench inequality rather than alleviate it.
Similarly, reforms in the United Kingdom, including academies and free schools, introduced autonomy and competition within publicly funded systems. Evidence suggests that while some improvements occurred, disparities persisted unless they are accompanied by strong redistributive mechanisms.
The salient lesson is clear: market forces alone do not guarantee equity. Strong public systems and regulatory oversight remain indispensable.
India’s education spending as a share of GDP has historically fallen short of the long-standing 6 per cent target articulated in policy documents. Per-student expenditure in many states lags behind both emerging economies and OECD averages. In such a context, expecting public schools to compete effectively with private providers is unrealistic. At the same time, the regulatory architecture governing private schooling is fragmented. Fee controls differ across states. Appeals and litigations are frequent. Political capture and administrative inertia dilute oversight. Schools often operate as quasi-corporate entities while enjoying concessions such as subsidised land or tax benefits.
The result is a hybrid system: publicly recognised rights coexisting with privately priced access. Calls for capping private school fees surface regularly, especially during economic downturns. While fee regulation is necessary to curb exploitative practices, it cannot substitute for systemic reform.
First, public schooling must be revitalised through sustained investment in teacher quality, pedagogical innovation, infrastructure and digital capacity. The goal should not merely be enrolment retention but parity of esteem with reputable private institutions.
Second, transparency in private school finances must be non-negotiable. Standardised disclosure of fee structures, audited statements, and clear justification for annually main increases can temper arbitrary escalation.
Third, public funding mechanisms should be redesigned to ensure that private schools benefiting from state concessions adhere to measurable equity and inclusion benchmarks.
Fourth, School Management Committees and local oversight bodies must be empowered with real authority, not token participation.
The core question is philosophical as much as fiscal: Is schooling primarily a market service or a public good? When families allocate disproportionate shares of income to education, often sacrificing healthcare or savings, the system signals commodification.
Education generates positive externalities — social mobility, civic participation, economic productivity — that justify collective investment. When quality education is contingent on affordability, these externalities shrink, and inequality widens.
India’s demographic dividend depends on accessible, high-quality schooling. If private fees continue to escalate unchecked while public institutions languish, education risks becoming a luxury tiered by class rather than a universal ladder of opportunity.
The solution does not lie in vilifying private providers nor romanticising public systems. It lies in recalibrating the balance: robust public provisioning complemented by regulated private participation, all anchored in equity.
Until then, millions of parents will continue to treat schooling as an onerous financial burden rather than a guaranteed right — and the promise of education as a transformative public good will remain only partially fulfilled.
(Vijay Shankar Pandey is former Secretary Government of India)
