THE rising cost of education in Dhaka has reached a point where it can no longer be treated as a routine concern. For a growing number of families, it has become a persistent and often overwhelming financial burden. Education, which ought to function as a basic right and a pathway to social mobility, is increasingly experienced as an expensive service. Even for middle-income households, managing school-related expenses now demands continuous adjustment, frequently at the cost of savings, healthcare, or other essential needs. What was once regarded as a necessary investment in a child’s future is now, for many, a source of constant anxiety.
A central feature of this problem lies in the way fees are structured. Schools and colleges impose a wide range of charges under multiple headings — admission fees, tuition fees, session fees, laboratory charges, transport costs, examination fees and a variety of additional payments, some of which are neither clearly defined nor adequately explained. For parents, the difficulty is not only the cumulative amount but also the lack of transparency. Payments appear fragmented across categories that are difficult to distinguish, creating confusion and limiting any meaningful understanding of what exactly is being paid for. What should be a straightforward system has instead become layered and opaque, leaving guardians with little choice but to comply.
This pattern increasingly resembles a commercial model rather than an educational one. Fees are divided into numerous segments that create an appearance of legitimacy while steadily raising the total cost. Institutions may argue that these charges reflect operational needs, but the overall effect is to shift education further into the realm of market transactions. In such a setting, the relationship between institution and family begins to resemble that between service provider and consumer, rather than educator and learner.
The strain does not end with institutional fees. A parallel system of private tutoring has become deeply embedded in the education process. Despite paying substantial sums to schools, many parents feel compelled to arrange additional academic support for their children. In practice, one tutor is rarely sufficient. Students often require separate guidance for English, mathematics and other subjects, particularly at higher levels where the curriculum becomes more specialised. Each of these tutors charges a monthly fee that can be considerable. When combined with school expenses, the total cost becomes difficult to sustain, even for relatively stable households.
This reliance on private tutoring raises uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of classroom teaching. Schools are expected to provide sufficient instruction for students to understand lessons and complete their work independently. Yet many parents report that this expectation is not being met. Students are sometimes given assignments or preparatory materials without adequate explanation, making external assistance almost unavoidable. In some cases, parents find themselves hiring the same teachers who instruct their children in school, creating an overlap that blurs the boundary between formal education and paid coaching. Such arrangements risk normalising a system in which classroom teaching alone is no longer considered sufficient.
Concerns also extend to the quality of evaluation within schools. There are instances where student work is not rigorously assessed and mistakes go uncorrected. While this may maintain an appearance of satisfactory performance, it undermines the learning process. Students lose the opportunity to identify and correct their weaknesses, while parents are left with an incomplete understanding of their children’s progress. Given the level of financial commitment involved, the expectation of careful assessment and constructive feedback is not unreasonable.
Beyond tuition and tutoring, a range of additional expenses contributes to the overall burden. Many institutions require uniforms, books and other materials to be purchased from designated sources, often at higher prices than those available in the open market. This restricts choice and increases costs unnecessarily. Transport is another major concern. In a city marked by congestion and long travel times, school transport services are expensive, while private alternatives can be equally costly. At the same time, the growing use of digital platforms in education has introduced new financial demands in the form of technology fees, online subscriptions and cloud-based services. While such developments may enhance learning, they also add to the cumulative strain on families.
Extracurricular activities, which are important for the overall development of students, frequently involve separate charges as well. Participation in sports, cultural programmes and clubs is often encouraged, but the associated costs can be prohibitive. As these expenses accumulate, education becomes not only a question of access to schooling but also of the ability to afford a range of associated activities that are increasingly treated as integral to the educational experience.
The broader implications of these trends are difficult to ignore. When the cost of education rises beyond what many families can reasonably afford, it reinforces existing inequalities and restricts opportunity. Students from less affluent backgrounds may find themselves excluded not only from certain institutions but also from the additional support systems that have become almost essential for academic success. In more troubling cases, financial pressure may lead families to make difficult or ethically questionable choices simply to meet educational expenses. Such outcomes point to a system under strain, where the social purpose of education risks being overshadowed by its economic demands.
Addressing this situation requires a more deliberate and coordinated response. Regulatory oversight is necessary to ensure that school fees remain reasonable and transparent. Institutions should be required to provide clear explanations for all charges, and mechanisms must be in place to monitor compliance. At the same time, improving the quality of classroom teaching is essential. If schools are able to provide effective instruction and meaningful academic support, the dependence on private tutoring may gradually decline.
There is also a need to examine the relationship between formal schooling and private coaching. When teachers provide paid tutoring to their own students, it creates a potential conflict of interest that should not be overlooked. Establishing clear guidelines in this area would help maintain professional boundaries and restore confidence in the integrity of classroom teaching.
Equally important is the need for sustained investment in public education. Without strong and affordable public institutions, families will continue to rely heavily on private providers, regardless of cost. Strengthening public schools, improving facilities and ensuring consistent teaching standards would provide a viable alternative and help rebalance the system.
The rising cost of education in Dhaka is not simply a matter of household finance; it is a question of equity and long-term social stability. Education is meant to expand opportunity, not restrict it. When access becomes dependent on income, the broader promise of education is diminished. Ensuring that it remains accessible requires more than individual effort; it calls for policy attention, institutional accountability and a renewed commitment to the idea of education as a public good.
Mohammad Mozammel Haque is an associate professor of English at Northern University Bangladesh.
