A class, in numbers.

Classpe’s Class X cohort of 2026 averaged 92.91% across 37 reporting students. Here’s what that means, how we measured it, and what it doesn’t tell you.

Posted by the Classpe team · 8 min read

Every coaching centre in Pune will publish their board results this month. Most will do it the same way — a grid of topper photos, large percentages, a caption with too many exclamation marks. We’ve written this differently on purpose, and we think it’s worth explaining why.

When a parent is deciding where to send their child for the next two years of school, what actually helps them decide isn’t the top score. It’s the shape of the cohort. How deep does the strength run? Who is the average student at this centre? What percentage scored well versus a handful who happened to? And — most importantly — is the coaching centre being honest with the data it shows you?

This is our attempt at that kind of report. We’ve included the numbers that flatter us and the numbers that don’t. We’ve been specific about what we measured, how we measured it, and what we’re deliberately not claiming. If it reads less like a celebration and more like a school annual report, that’s the point.

Classpe’s CBSE Class X cohort for 2025–26 had 54 students on roll. Of those, 37 reported their final overall percentage and subject scores directly to us, via confirmed WhatsApp or phone follow-ups with students or parents. Everything here is based on those 37 responses — no extrapolation, no imputation, no filling in the blanks.

Here’s what that cohort did.

The headline number.

Across the 37 students who reported, the cohort mean overall percentage was 92.91%. The median was 93.80%. The highest reported score was 98.80% — Ahana Kerkar, with 97 in Mathematics and 98 in Science. The lowest reported score was 80.00%.

Both numbers — mean and median — are worth reading side by side. They tell you different things. The mean is the simple average: add up the 37 overall percentages, divide by 37. The median is the middle value when the scores are sorted — the point at which half the cohort is above and half is below. When the two sit close, as they do here, it tells you there aren’t extreme outliers skewing the picture in either direction. The cohort performed consistently.

What this number is not: a promise of what any individual student will score next year. Cohorts vary, syllabi change, board exam patterns shift. What the number is, is a reasonably good proxy for the teaching environment your child would walk into. A group average of 92.91% is unusual, and it’s the thing worth weighing seriously when evaluating any coaching centre.

Two secondary numbers matter too. The standard deviation — a measure of how spread out the scores were — was 4.49 points. In plain English: most students were clustered reasonably close to the mean rather than stretched across a wide band. The full range, from 80.00% to 98.80%, is 18.80 points — a reasonable spread for 37 students, and a useful reminder that Classpe isn’t only about the toppers.

Where the weight sits.

If all we showed you was the mean, we’d be leaving out the most important thing — the shape of the distribution underneath it. Here’s how the 37 students broke down by grade band.

Read from the top: thirteen students scored at or above 95% overall — more than one in three. Nineteen more sat in the 90% to 94.99% band. Taken together, 32 of the 37 reporting students — 86% of the reported cohort — crossed the 90% mark.

Why does this matter? A coaching centre with one topper at 99% and the rest of the class scraping 70% produces very different outcomes than one where nearly the entire class is above 90%. The former is a centre that happened to enrol a bright student. The latter is a centre where the teaching is working across students of different starting abilities. Parents evaluating options should look at the band under the topper, not the topper alone.

The two lower bands — 85–89.99% and 80–84.99% — account for five students combined. Their presence in this report is important. It tells you something went differently for these students than for the other 32. In most cases, when we spoke to these families, the story involved either a subject-specific gap (typically Mathematics, where the cohort average ran lower), or external factors affecting board preparation. We’ll write about how we’re narrowing that gap later in this report.

The top performers.

Ahana Kerkar finished the cohort at 98.80% overall, with 97 in Mathematics and 98 in Science — the only student to cross 98%. Ranks two through five were all within half a percentage point of each other: Suhani Iyer (97.40%), Mihika Kerkar (97.40%), Akshat Hupale (97.00%), and Manasvi Katta (97.00%).

One student deserves separate mention. Anvi Maniyar scored a perfect 100 in Science, the only perfect subject score in the cohort. Her overall was 96.80% — not the highest in the class, but the absolute highest possible score in one subject.

What’s worth noticing in the top ten isn’t only the high overall percentages, but the variation within each student’s subject scores. Suhani Iyer had an 85 in Maths but still finished at 97.40% overall, carried by her other subjects. Akshat Hupale’s Maths was 83; his overall was 97.00%. This matters because it tells you the board result reflects a student’s full profile across five subjects, not just performance in two of them.

“The question worth asking of any coaching centre is not ‘what’s your highest score’, but ‘how deep does the strength run?'”

Mathematics and Science.

The cohort performed differently in the two subjects we teach directly. This is worth looking at carefully.

Mathematics

The cohort mean for Mathematics was 83.45, with a highest score of 97 and a lowest of 50. Fifteen students (41%) scored 90 or above. Four scored 95 or above. Compared to Science, the spread was wider: Maths scores ranged across 47 points, from 50 to 97.

Science

The cohort mean for Science was 90.32, with a highest score of 100 (Anvi Maniyar’s perfect paper) and a lowest of 57. Twenty-seven students (73%) scored 90 or above. Thirteen scored 95 or above. The spread ran across 43 points, from 57 to 100, but with more clustering near the top.

What does the gap between these two subject means tell you?

For prospective students, it tells you that at Classpe, Science teaching is currently a relative strength and Mathematics is a relative area of focus. That is not a flattering finding, and we’re reporting it because it’s accurate. When we looked at the students in the lower overall bands, the most common factor was a weaker Maths score pulling down an otherwise strong set of results. Stuti Adhikarla scored 59 in Maths but 87 in Science and 94.60% overall — clearly capable, but Maths was the drag.

For our teaching staff, this gap is the single most important planning input for the 2026–27 cohort. We’re restructuring the Class X Mathematics track for the coming year — a separate stream for students who test below a threshold at intake, with additional practice sessions and more frequent diagnostic tests. We’ll be transparent about whether it works in next year’s report.

Not one topper. Thirty-two.

The most common failure mode of a coaching-centre results post is over-weighting the topper. One student at 99%, the rest at 75%, and the centre’s marketing will feature the 99% front and centre. Parents are told they’ll be “in good company.”

The better question is how deep the strength runs. Here’s how it ran in this cohort.

The number parents should pay most attention to is 32. Thirty-two of 37 students — 86.5% of the reporting cohort — at or above 90%. That is the real shape of the Classpe Class X environment.

Another way to read it: if a student enrols at Classpe and ends up performing at the cohort median, they’d score 93.80%. Not the topper. Not the bottom. The middle. That is the benchmark worth planning around.

If you’d like to speak with any of the students listed in this report or their parents as part of evaluating Classpe, we’re happy to facilitate that — with their permission.

What this data doesn’t tell you.

A lot of what matters about a coaching centre doesn’t show up in a cohort report.

This document tells you how 37 students performed on their CBSE Class X board exams. It doesn’t tell you how they performed as people. It doesn’t tell you which student grew the most between when they started and when they left. It doesn’t tell you who was the first in their family going to college and was making it through Class X with no one at home who could help with homework. It doesn’t tell you who started Class IX at 60% and finished Class X at 92%.

These stories matter. They are arguably what a good coaching centre does for a living. A centre that produces toppers from students who were already toppers when they enrolled isn’t adding much. A centre that moves students meaningfully along their trajectory — upward — is doing the actual work.

We can’t quantify every such trajectory in a blog post. But parents evaluating coaching centres should ask questions designed to probe for it, not just for end-state scores. Some examples worth asking:

How does the centre measure progress over time? If the only data point is the final board result, that’s too late. What tests do they run in the middle of the year? Do they share results with parents?

What’s their approach to students who join mid-year or with preparation gaps? A centre that only works well for students who were already ahead is doing less than it could.

What happens when a student’s scores drop? Does the parent hear about it? From whom? How quickly?

How often do teachers and parents actually meet? If the answer is “at the end of the term,” that’s not a feedback loop. It’s a status update.

We’re also not claiming that this cohort’s performance was caused entirely by Classpe. Students come from different schools, have different family support, attend tutoring elsewhere for other subjects. A coaching centre is one input among many. What we can claim is that we maintained an environment where 86% of the reporting cohort cleared 90% on their boards. What part of that is the centre and what part is the students is genuinely hard to disentangle — and we’d be suspicious of any centre that claims otherwise.

How we teach.

Credibility reports are worth writing when there’s a method underneath the numbers worth talking about. Here’s how Classpe is structured.

Capped batch sizes.

Our Class X batches are deliberately small, so every student is known by every teacher — by name, by gap, and by goal. Most coaching centres in Pune run batches of 40 to 60 or more. Small batches are expensive. They mean more teachers per student, which is harder to staff and costlier to run. We think it’s worth it. Parents who send their child to a lecture-hall model lose the single most useful thing a coaching centre can provide: a teacher who actually knows your child’s specific weak points.

Teachers from IITs and IISERs.

Our subject teachers are alumni of the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research. This matters less because of institutional prestige and more because of practical experience. Our teachers have actually sat the JEE and the IISER Aptitude Test, prepared for them, and navigated the transition from board-level study to competitive-exam-level study firsthand. They know the difference between the two types of rigour, and they can build a curriculum that readies students for both.

Boards, JEE, and IAT under one roof.

A student who’s serious about JEE or the IISER Aptitude Test cannot afford a Class X curriculum narrowly optimized for boards alone. The Class X syllabus is the foundation for two to four years of competitive exam preparation that follows. At Classpe, our CBSE Class X teaching is structured to set up that continuity — stronger algebra, deeper problem-solving, exposure to questions that go beyond board patterns.

Diagnostic testing, not just teaching.

We run diagnostic tests at regular intervals, not only to grade but to identify where each student is losing marks. A student who loses ten marks on a paper for three different reasons needs three different interventions, not one. We try to do that diagnosis systematically.

Parent-teacher continuity.

Parents meet their child’s subject teachers regularly through the year — not only at term-end. A parent who finds out at result time that their child has been struggling since October is a parent who was not served well. We try hard not to let that happen.

What’s next — the 2026–27 cohort.

Admissions for the 2026–27 academic year are open. Here’s what we’re changing based on what we learned from this cohort.

A separate Mathematics stream for students below an intake threshold. The single most actionable finding from this cohort’s data was that Mathematics was the consistent weak point for students in the lower overall bands. For 2026–27, we’re introducing a separate Maths stream with additional practice hours and more frequent assessments for students who test below a set threshold at the start of the year. We’ll report whether it helped in next year’s report.

Monthly diagnostic checkpoints. We’re moving from quarterly diagnostic tests to monthly ones. The earlier a gap is identified, the more time there is to close it.

Expanded IAT preparation from Class X onwards. The IISER Aptitude Test is an undervalued pathway into research careers for students interested in pure science. We’re expanding IAT-specific preparation for interested students from Class X itself, not just from Class XI.

Batch sizes stay capped. Some things aren’t changing. Our batch size caps remain what they were. We’ll add more batches as needed rather than expand existing ones.

Who should consider Classpe.

If you’re evaluating whether to enrol your child at Classpe — for Class X or for the JEE and IAT years that follow — this section is worth reading carefully. The honest answer is that Classpe is a strong fit for some families and not for others.

A closing note.

A cohort report is a strange thing to write. It asks a coaching centre to do something coaching centres rarely do — tell the full truth about their own numbers, with the uncomfortable parts left in. The temptation to over-celebrate is constant, because the commercial incentive to do so is real.

We’ve tried to resist that temptation here. Our Class of 2026 did well — 92.91% is a genuinely good cohort mean, and we’re proud of the thirteen students at or above 95%. But the point of this report isn’t the number. The point is that we’ve shown our working. You can see exactly how many students reported, exactly how they distributed, exactly where our relative weakness was, and exactly what we’re planning to do about it in 2026–27.

If this report changes how you think about evaluating coaching centres — even if Classpe isn’t the one you eventually choose — it will have done its job.

Be the next name on this list. Or don’t. But at least now you know what the list actually means.

— The Classpe team, Pune · April 2026