By Evangeline Dkhar
In recent years, Meghalaya has witnessed a visible boom in the number of private educational institutions — from small primary schools in towns and villages to large private colleges and universities in Shillong and beyond. This rise has been further influenced by the introduction of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which envisions a new, inclusive, and flexible educational framework for India. However, behind the promise of quality education lies a complex social reality. The rapid growth of private institutions has generated new opportunities but also new inequalities, especially for teachers and students who form the backbone of the system. A sociological analysis helps us see beyond the surface — to understand the changing dynamics of education, power, and labour in Meghalaya today.
Privatisation and the Changing Purpose of Education
Sociologically, education is a powerful agent of socialisation and mobility. It shapes not only individual careers but also social values, class structure, and cultural identity. However, the growing privatisation of education in Meghalaya reflects a shift in how education is perceived — from a social right to a market commodity. The state’s limited capacity to build and maintain enough government institutions has led to private actors stepping in. Private schools and colleges promise better infrastructure, English-medium education, and digital learning tools. Yet, these often come with high fees, turning education into a product accessible mainly to middle- and upper-class families. This, as Pierre Bourdieu observed, reinforces social inequality by giving more cultural capital to those already privileged.
The NEP and the Ground Reality
The NEP 2020 brings new expectations for both teachers and institutions — encouraging multidisciplinary learning, research orientation, and the integration of technology in education. However, the reality in many private institutions across Meghalaya is far from these ideals. Several colleges, particularly in semi-urban and rural areas, operate with a shortage of qualified teachers. One teacher may be required to handle multiple subjects, supervise students, manage administrative work, and even take part in admission and extracurricular activities. The concept of holistic education becomes difficult when teachers are already overburdened and under-supported.
Teachers are also resigning from their posts due to the combination of heavy workload and low pay, leading to frequent changes of staff and instability in departments. This affects students directly, as they face disruptions in their learning process and loss of academic continuity. Meanwhile, institutions often demand UGC-level qualifications from teachers, but the salaries offered rarely match those qualifications. This contradiction discourages many of today’s youth from applying for teaching positions in private institutions, as they seek better opportunities elsewhere.
Challenges Faced by Teachers: Low Salaries, Heavy Workload, and Job Insecurity
Teachers in private institutions form one of the most vulnerable sections of the educated workforce. Unlike their counterparts in government institutions, they often receive low salaries, sometimes even below minimum wage standards. The salary disparity is striking — in some private colleges, teachers earn less than ₹15,000–₹20,000 per month despite holding postgraduate or doctoral degrees. Moreover, salary cuts, delayed payments, and absence of yearly increments are common. During long holidays or admission periods, some institutions even reduce pay citing financial constraints. This not only affects teachers’ livelihoods but also their motivation and morale.
The workload is another major challenge. Teachers are expected to conduct classes, prepare reports, attend meetings, handle co-curricular duties, and maintain discipline, often without support staff. In many cases, they are assigned tasks outside their subject expertise, undermining both teaching quality and professional confidence. Adding to this, casual and medical leaves are restricted, and maternity benefits are often denied or unpaid. Many institutions also discourage participation in seminars or training programmes, even though such exposure is vital for academic growth. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s concept of “emotional labour” aptly describes their situation — teachers must continue to appear calm, dedicated, and enthusiastic, even when exhausted or stressed.
Institutional Control and Lack of Voice
Another major sociological concern is the power structure within private institutions. Most are controlled by management boards, where teachers have little to no participation in decision-making. Policies regarding fees, workloads, or internal evaluations are often made without consulting the faculty. This creates a culture of fear and silence. Teachers who question unfair practices risk non-renewal of contracts or salary cuts. In Weberian terms, this reflects an over-bureaucratised system — one that values hierarchy and obedience over creativity and collaboration. Instead of being empowered professionals, teachers are treated as replaceable employees.
Students’ Struggles in Private Institutions
Students, too, face growing challenges under this system. While private institutions advertise “quality education,” many lack proper laboratories, libraries, and research facilities. Students pay high fees but receive limited academic support. In smaller towns, overcrowded classrooms and irregular class schedules affect learning outcomes. The digital divide has further deepened inequality. With the NEP promoting online and blended learning, students from rural areas or poor households struggle to keep up due to weak internet connectivity and the cost of devices. While urban students benefit from digital resources, rural students often lag behind, reproducing the same socio-economic divisions that education is meant to bridge.
Additionally, private institutions often impose strict rules and penalties, emphasizing discipline and reputation over student welfare. Mental health support, counselling, and co-curricular development remain neglected areas. Many students experience stress, financial pressure, and even feelings of alienation in an overly competitive environment.
Gender Dimensions of Inequality
The situation becomes more complex when viewed through a gender lens. Many female teachers face what sociologists call the “double burden” — managing both professional responsibilities and domestic duties. After long working hours, many continue to shoulder unpaid household work at home, which affects their rest, focus, and overall well-being. In addition, maternity leave and childcare support remain limited in several institutions. Some women return to work earlier than they should because of job insecurity or fear of salary cuts. Travelling long distances, especially in rural or semi-urban areas, can also pose safety concerns. These challenges often go unnoticed in institutional discussions about equality or teacher welfare.
While both male and female teachers face low pay and heavy workloads, women are often under greater pressure to balance family expectations with professional dedication. This highlights how gender inequalities persist even in professional spaces that promote education and empowerment. Recognising and addressing these subtle inequalities is essential for creating a truly inclusive and supportive academic environment.
Building a Fair and Inclusive Education System
Sociologically, the issues surrounding private education in Meghalaya reflect broader structural problems — weak state funding, rising unemployment, and the commodification of knowledge. To truly benefit from the NEP, the government and educational boards must ensure:
Fair pay and job security for teachers through standardised salary guidelines.
Regular monitoring of private institutions to ensure compliance with labour and education norms.
Investment in teacher training and professional development.
Better student support systems, including counselling and affordable digital access.
Transparent governance and inclusion of teachers in institutional decision-making.
Conclusion: The rise of private institutions in Meghalaya represents both progress and paradox. On one hand, they have expanded educational access and created new opportunities for youth. On the other, they have intensified inequality, precarity, and stress for both teachers and students. If the NEP’s vision of a transformative, equitable, and quality education system is to be realised, the human side of education — the teachers who teach and the students who learn — must be placed at the centre of policy and practice.
Education cannot thrive when those who build its foundation are underpaid, overworked, and unheard. The true test of Meghalaya’s educational future will not be in the number of private institutions it builds, but in how justly and humanely they function.
Sources and References:
1. National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, Government of India, Ministry of Education.
2. Bourdieu, Pierre. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In Power and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A. H. Halsey, Oxford University Press, 1977.
3. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press, 1983.
4. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press, 1978.
5. “Private Schools and Teacher Inequality in Northeast India.” The Shillong Times, Editorial Section, 2023.
6 “The Reality of Teacher Pay and Conditions in Meghalaya’s Private Sector.” The Meghalaya Guardian, 2024.
7. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: The Value of Teachers.
8. UGC Guidelines on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018.
