Part 3 of 19 in Why Schools are Broken: and How to Fix Them← Part 2Part 4 →
This chapter explains how India’s modern schooling system grew from colonial institutions into a large, centralised system focused on credentials and exams. It helps readers understand why private schools, coaching classes and dummy schools became common when formal schooling failed to deliver learning.
- British schools and colleges trained clerks and administrators, while post-Independence expansion aimed at literacy, skilled work and social mobility.
- The system expanded access but often produced poor quality through centralised curricula, coverage-focused teacher training and rote evaluation.
- Private schools grew when government schools failed to deliver learning, and coaching classes grew when schools failed to prepare students for exams.
- Coaching consumes adolescent time and family savings while teaching narrow knowledge that may disappear after the exam.
- Dummy schools provide Class 12 certificates while coaching institutes provide the main instruction for engineering and medical entrance exams.
India’s modern schooling system has colonial roots and post-Independence ambitions. The British built a small system of elite schools and colleges to produce clerks and administrators. After 1947, the state expanded this model rapidly, first at the primary level and later at secondary and higher education. The goal was nation-building: literate citizens, skilled workers, and social mobility.
The expansion succeeded in numbers. It failed in quality for large sections of the population. Centralised curricula, teacher training that emphasised coverage rather than mastery, and evaluation systems based on rote recall all reinforced the same pattern Goodman criticised: schooling as processing rather than education as growing up.
The Rise of the Private School and the Coaching Industry
When government schools failed to deliver learning, middle-class parents turned to private schools. When private schools still failed to prepare children for competitive exams, parents turned to coaching classes. Today, in cities such as Kota, Hyderabad and Delhi, coaching has become a second compulsory system. Students attend school in the morning and coaching in the evening, or abandon regular school altogether for “dummy” schools while attending coaching full-time.
This is compulsory miseducation on an industrial scale. The coaching industry exists because the formal system does not teach the material needed for the next filter (JEE, NEET, board exams). It thrives on parental anxiety. It consumes adolescent time and family savings. And it teaches a narrow, exam-oriented version of knowledge that evaporates once the exam is over.
Case Study: The Dummy School Phenomenon
In many Indian cities, students preparing for engineering or medical entrance exams enrol in schools that do not require regular attendance. These “dummy” schools exist solely to provide the Class 12 certificate required by universities. The real education, such as it is, happens in the coaching institute. Goodman’s warning that schooling serves credentialing rather than learning could not be clearer. The school has become a paperwork office; the actual instruction is purchased separately.
Frequently asked questions
Why did coaching classes become common in India?
Coaching classes grew because the formal school system did not teach the material needed for JEE, NEET and board exams. They also thrive on parental anxiety.
What are dummy schools in India?
Dummy schools are schools that do not require regular attendance. Students use them to obtain the Class 12 certificate required by universities while receiving instruction at coaching institutes.
How did India’s schooling system develop?
The British built a small system of elite schools and colleges for clerks and administrators. After 1947, the state expanded it across primary, secondary and higher education for nation-building.
Why does the chapter say India’s schooling expansion failed in quality?
It says centralised curricula, teacher training focused on coverage and rote-based evaluation reinforced schooling as processing rather than education as growing up.