Gender Parity in Indian Schools:

Changing Equations

Working Paper Version 1.0

June 2014

Avinash Kumar

Abstract: Education for girls and women has been an important focus area for governments

and policy makers in many developing nations, in the last few decades. Starting in the mid-

1980s, especially after the framing of the National Policy of Education, 1986, the Indian

government too initiated a number of measures to improve girls’ education in the country. This

paper reviews the present status of the participation of children in school education in India,

focusing specifically on two often-reported parameters of gender parity index and drop-out

rates. Presenting an analysis of national and state level data from 1990-91 to 2010-11, it

highlights how the situation on the ground has changed considerably in the last two decades,

and is now far more complex than is commonly acknowledged. On the one hand, girls in some

states and communities continue to face challenges in access to education; and on the other

hand, the gender parity ratios and drop-out percentages are now skewed against the boys in a

significant number of states and union territories. Parallels with international trends are drawn;

and implications for educators and administrators are discussed.

Key words: gender parity, drop-out rates, intersectional theory, gender equality, girls education

Key Points:

India achieved gender parity in primary education in 2007-08. At the level of States and UTs, however, we now have disparities not only against girls (in 6 states and UTs) but also against boys (in 5 states and UTs).

The national level gender parity index for the secondary and senior secondary classes stand at 0.88 and 0.86 respectively, indicating a bias against girls. Interestingly however, 13 states & UTs now show substantial bias against male children even at these higher levels.

Historically, the drop-out rates of girls have been higher than that of the boys. The gap in the drop-out rates of the two genders began to reduce significantly in the 1980s; and in the 2000s the drop-out rates of boys became higher in all grade-ranges – starting from the primary section (I-V) in 2002-03, to elementary section (I-VIII) in 2006-07, and secondary section (I-X) in 2009-10. The drop-out rates are steepest for girls between 5th and 8th, and steepest for boys between 8th and 10th. Between 1st and 10th standard a larger percentage of boys drop out as compared to girls.

The data analysis reveals a need for continued focus on girls’ access to education in a number of states. Underling micro-trends, however, also hint at the need for specific attention and measures around boys’ education (such as studies to understand the peculiar challenges faced by boys, state or national level policy interventions to improve their retention and enrolment esp. in higher classes etc.) International trends suggest that ignoring this need may cause the pendulum of gender parity to swing far on to the other side in the coming decade, placing many states and UTs once more in a difficult situation, this time with respect to boys’ education.

1. Introduction

Education for girls and women has been one of the key focus areas for policy planners and

governments in many countries in the last few decades (see, for instance, SADEV, 2010;

UNICEF, 2009, p.6). In 1990, representatives from about 150 governmental, non-governmental

and intergovernmental organizations met at the World Conference on Education for All in

Jomtien, Thailand; to discuss the universalization of adequate basic education. The declaration

adopted by the conference stated that, “Basic education should be provided to all children,

youth and adults” (UNESCO, 1990) and then went on to note, “The most urgent priority is to

ensure access to, and improve the quality of, education for girls and women, and to remove

every obstacle that hampers their active participation. All gender stereotyping in education

should be eliminated” (ibid.) A decade later, the Dakar Declaration on Education for All (EFA) by

2015, and the Millennium Declaration, urged national governments “to pursue more focused

action and set concrete targets and a time frame for achieving the goal of gender equality in

education” (UNICEF, 2009). Two of the six goals that the attendees of Dakar World Education

Forum, including India, committed themselves to, relate specifically to girls’ access to education

and eliminating gender disparity in education (UNESCO, 2000) [a].

The importance of female education has been clearly acknowledged in Indian policy documents

since the 1960s (see for instance, the report of the Kothari Commission, 1964-66); however, it is

the National Policy on Education (NPE, 1986) and the Programme of Action (POA) (NPE revised

in 1992) which is often considered a landmark, with regard to girls’ education in the country. In

a chapter titled Education for Women’s Equality, it says, “Education will be used as an agent of

basic change in the status of women. In order to neutralize the accumulated distortions of the

past, there will be a well-conceived edge in favor of women…It will foster the development of

new values through redesigned curricula, textbooks, the training and orientation of teachers,

decision-makers and administrators, and the active involvement of educational institutions.”

(GoI 1986, 1992)

Following the Jomtien declaration, there was an increase in investment in education

internationally; and a number of projects and programs focused on improving the access and

quality of education were started in India as well. The District Primary Education Project (DPEP)

was started in 1993, as part of the Social Safety Net Credit Adjustment Loan to India under the

Structural Adjustment Programme of the World Bank in 1991. The project made gender an

“integral part of strategies to tackle problems of access, retention and achievement levels and

for reaching out to children from the most disadvantaged groups/communities”

(Ramachandran, 2003) and incorporated “a gender perspective in all aspects of the planning

and implementation process” (GoI 1995). One of the key objectives of the project was “to

increase coverage of girls, improve their academic achievements and reduce gender disparities

in respect to enrolment, retention and learning achievements.” (DPEP, MHRD, GoI, 2000; as

cited in Ramachandran, 2003)

Following recommendations from the state education ministers’ conference in 1998, the Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) was launched in 2001. And with the 86th constitutional amendment

enacted in 2002 (which mandated that the State shall provide free and compulsory education

to all children of the age of six to fourteen years), SSA also became the primary vehicle for the

achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) in a time bound manner.

Education of girls was one of the principal concerns of SSA as it was conceptualized in 2000-01

(GoI, 2000) and it continues to be one of its key focus areas even in 2014.

As will be clearer through our discussion in the following sections, it appears that the “well-

conceived edge in favor of women” reflected in the various programs and provisions of the

Central and some State governments over the last two decades (including but not limited to

DPEP and SSA; for a more detailed list of policies and programs see additional notes [f]; also

Ramachandran, 1998), has had a gradual but significant positive impact on girls education in the

country. As the report of the 12th Planning Commission notes, “Girls account for the majority

(73.5%) of the additional enrolment of children between 2006–07 and 2009–10. Three

initiatives of the Eleventh Plan helped to increase the enrolment of girls. These included (i)

setting up of 3,600 Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas in 27 States and Union Territories (UTs)

(ii) establishment of 7,000 Early Childhood Care Centres in EBBs and (iii) implementation of

Mahila Samakhya programme in ten States.” (GoI, 2013)

1.1 Explaining the Policy Focus

In domains such as sociology, gender and cultural studies, the ‘intersectional approach’ is often

used by researchers and academics to understand and explain the ways in which different

forms and dimensions of discriminations and inequality interact with each other. The term was

made popular by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) to highlight the fact that the experiences and

struggles of women of colour were addressed neither by the feminist nor by the anti-racist

discourses independently. The approach instead suggests that the traditional axes of inequality

and discrimination such as gender, race, class or caste do not act independently of one other;

but rather interact and reciprocate on multiple levels and often simultaneously - creating a

system of exclusion and/or subordination which shapes the identity and experiences of the

person who finds himself at the intersection of these axes. (Winker & Degele, 2011)

One finds the intersectional approach informing a number of official Indian documents. The

position paper of the national focus group on ‘gender issues in education’, which was

developed under the aegis of National Curriculum Framework, 2005; for instance, notes in a

section titled ‘Diversity and Intersectionality’ that, “Feminist scholarship argues that the

experience of gender relations as they are lived, forms a basis for understanding the links

between gender and other asymmetric systems. It is critical to account for race, class, ethnicity

and culture as well as gender within social inquiry.” This approach also guides our policies and

plans, as reflected in the 12th planning commission report, which observes at different points

that, “bridging the social and gender gaps in enrolment with regard to SCs, STs and minority

girls should receive special attention” (p.60) and “special emphasis should be put on those

schemes that recognize the intersectional nature of disadvantages to address all dimensions of

inequality in a holistic manner” (p. 103). (Also see examples from DPEP and SSA at [d])

This paper thus seeks to explore the progress made in this area after close to two decades of

focused effort to improve girls’ education; highlights some underlying trends; and discusses

some implications for future policies and programs. Though gender ‘parity’ does not necessarily

and always translate to gender ‘equality’ (more on this in additional notes [e]), given that the

parameters of gender parity index and students drop-out rate are important indicators of

gender equality, the discussions will primarily be based on the analysis of these two parameters

for the period between 1991-2011. Gender Parity Index (or GPI) is a socioeconomic index

widely used to measure the relative access to education of males and females. It is calculated as

the ratio of the female Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) [b] to male Gross Enrolment Ratio in a

given stage of education (for e.g. primary or senior secondary) such that a GPI of 1 indicates

parity between sexes. A drop-out, on the other hand, is a student who leaves school before the

completion of a particular school stage. As an example, drop-out rate at primary level would be

calculated by subtracting the value which is obtained by dividing the enrolment in Class V

during 2013-14 by enrolment in Class I during 2009-10, from one; and multiplying it by 100.

We will start by looking at the historical trends in the overall gender parity numbers in schools

at the national level. Thereafter, I will present an analysis of the gender parity data

disaggregated at the level of States and Union Territories (UT) and highlight some of the key

insights that emerge from this analysis. I will then discuss the drop-out numbers in different

states and UTs; and will finally conclude with a discussion of relevant international trends and

some implications for educators and education administrators. All data used in this paper have

been sourced from reports of Statistics of School Education published by Ministry of Human

Resource Development, Government of India; which are based on educational statistics

supplied by all recognized schools of the country (TNS, 2013).

2. Historical Trends of Gender Parity in Indian Schools

Fig. 1 summarizes the gender parity numbers at the national level from the year 1990-91 to

2010-11. The 2nd to 5th column on the left contain the ‘Overall’ gender parity; columns 6th to 9th

contain gender parity among students of the Scheduled Castes; and the last four columns on

the right, gender parity among students of the Scheduled Tribes. The first column in each of

these three sets is for grades I-V (primary classes), the second column is for grades VI-VIII

(upper primary), the third column for IX-X (secondary classes) and the last column in each set

represent the gender parity among students of standards XI-XII (senior secondary). The cells of

the table have been colour-coded with the warmer shares of red and orange indicating poor

gender-parity; and the lighter shades of yellow-green and green indicating comparatively better

gender-parity numbers. White cells indicate that the data for the relevant classes and years

were not available.

Fig. 1: Gender Parity Index between 1990-2011

Fig. 1 indicates some clear trends - for instance, as we move from top to bottom, for each of the

three categories of Overall, SC and ST; we see a shift from the red-orange shades to the green-

yellow shades, representing the gradual improvements in gender parity across all categories as

we move from 1990-91 to 2010-11.

Second, within each category, the proportion of green tends to be higher for lower grades and

lower for higher grades - the primary classes are largely green (i.e. parity numbers above 0.95)

for all three categories, especially from the year 2007-08 onwards. Third, if we focus on the last

five years (06-07 to 10-11, the gender-parity in upper-primary classes are inching close to 1 as

well; though the secondary classes are still in the yellow-green range (i.e. between .85 and .9).

Fourth, the only cells which are still clearly in the red-zone are those representing the gender

parity of students of Schedule Tribes in the upper secondary classes. And finally, gender parity

among the Schedule Caste students is almost at the same level as the ‘overall’ category for the

primary and upper primary classes; but perhaps contrary to expectations, in the secondary and

senior secondary classes, the SC category students have slightly better gender parity than both

the other groups.

Let us now analyze the rate of change in gender parity index in the last two decades. Fig. 2

shows the improvement in the parity numbers in all four grade-ranges (primary, upper primary,

secondary and senior secondary), between 90-91 and 10-11 for the ‘overall’ category.

Fig. 2: Rate of change in GPI between 1990 and 2011

Percentage improvement in gender parity index witnessed a sudden jump over the previous

year in 1993-94 (by 13%) for I-V kids. Similar improvement was also recorded for VI-VIII

standards. A potential explanation for this sudden increase is the initiation of the DPEP project

in 1993. However, while the parity index number for the next year went down by 7% for

primary classes; it saw only a marginal dip for upper primary classes (Why?). The improvement

in parity index was extremely slow between 95-96 and 2001-02 for both primary and senior

primary classes (Why?); but the second spurt in improvement was witnessed in 2002-03 - when

gender parity for all classes, from I to Xth, showed remarkable improvements of between 10

and 15%. This improvement is likely linked with the start of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which

has a special focus on girls’ education. The improvement slowed down again between 2003 and

07; and saw the next, relatively milder jump, in 07-08 (why?). Interestingly this happened in all

class-bands except upper primary (Why?)

Overall, the improvements in gender parity seem to have happened in noticeable spurts,

followed by a period of slow growth. This perhaps points to the important role played by

special programs and drives (such as those initiated under DPEP and SSA) focused on improving

enrolments, especially of the girls. The improvement in parity index across all class-ranges seem

to follow a similar shape, indicating common influencing factors; though the intensity of

influence on different categories has been different.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, while we have reached parity in primary classes and seem to

inch close to parity in upper-primary grades; the parity index for senior secondary and

secondary classes have been consistently between 0.8 and 0.88, between the years 02-03 and

10-11. It appears that a focused effort in the form of specific programs may now be needed to

attempt a substantial jump (of 10% or above) in gender parity ratios in higher secondary and

secondary classes (especially in states where girls continue to have high drop-out rates). Similar

analysis for the SC and ST category can be seen in the additional notes [c].

2.1 Disaggregating the Data

As Prof. Rosling, a Swedish doctor and statistician, demonstrated in a widely cited TED Talk in

2006, while developmental statistics at regional levels may be useful to summarize the large

picture; the statistics of individual countries within the same region may in reality show

extreme variations. These more granular trends and patterns, however, often get ignored,

leading to inaccurate inferences being drawn about the developmental status of different

countries. He showed, for instance, how the child mortality rate of Turkey is significantly worse

than Sri Lanka; even though people expect Turkey to have better development and health

indicators as compared to Sri Lanka (as the former is a European Union nation while the latter a

South Asian nation).

Given the size of India and diversity among its states, it may thus also be useful to disaggregate

the data and look at the gender parity numbers at the level of States and Union Territories.

However, it would be more relevant to focus our analysis and discussion on parity numbers for

the latest years for which data is available i.e. from the year 2006-07 to 2010-11; and my

attempt would be to present this data visually so that it is easy to see the underlying micro-

trends.

Gender Parity Trends in States and UTs Between 2006-11

Fig 3 depicts the average gender parity index for three years between 2008-11, for India and its

35 states and UTs. The first row contains the gender parity index for India, whereas the rest of

the table contains the gender parity ratios of States and UTs arranged in the descending order

of their population size - such that the upper half of the figure (starting from Uttar Pradesh and

ending in Haryana) contain the more populous states and UTs, and the lower half (starting from

Delhi and ending in Lakshadweep) contains the less populous states and UTs. The first four

colored columns pertain to the ‘overall’ category (primary, upper primary, secondary and upper

secondary classes respectively); the second set is for SC students and the last set of four

columns contain the gender parity ratios among ST students.

UNESCO accepts a GPI value between 0.97 and 1.03 as the achievement of gender parity.

Accordingly, the cells are colour coded such that parity ratio of >1.03 (bias against boys) is

represented in dark brown; an acceptable parity range between .97 and 1.03 is marked as

green, parity ratio between .96 and .86 is represented by pink, between .86 and .7 is

represented by yellow and parity ratio below .7 by red (the last three representing increasing

bias against girls).

Fig 3: Average GPI between 2008-11 for all Indian States and UTs (see in PDF)

If one were to focus only on the first row which presents the gender parity ratios at the national

level, the following inferences may be drawn. We have near-perfect gender parity in the

primary classes across all three categories. For upper primary classes, while we have acceptable

gender parity among SC students, we see a bias against girls in the ST and overall categories.

Secondary and upper-secondary classes have gender disparity against girls in all three

categories; with the bias against girls in ST category being especially high.

Analyzing the desegregated data, however, helps us see some other clear micro-trends. First,

while a large number of states and UTs (31/35) continue to have substantial bias against girls in

at least one of the three categories and four class-ranges; as many as 25 states and UTs now

have substantial bias against the boys in at least one of the grade-ranges and categories.

Second, the upper half of the table has a noticeably higher concentration of red and yellow cells

(indicating high bias against the girls) when compared to the lower half. This indicates that the

more populous states such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa and Jharkhand still

have a lot of ground to cover to improve the gender parity in favour of girls, especially in the

secondary and upper secondary classes. Contrary to common perceptions though, the more

populous states/UTs also have more green cells as compared to the less populous states/UTs of

the lower half. The reason for this anomaly is that in the smaller states and UTs; the pendulum

of gender parity index has swung to the other side in the last few years – and they now show a

high concentration of brown cells representing substantial bias against the boys in their

schools.

Third, of the primary, upper primary, secondary and senior secondary classes, gender parity

ratios are best in the primary classes; however, while 6 states and UTs continue to have

substantially lesser girls than boys in I-V standards; 5 states and UTs (U.P., Gujarat, Haryana,

Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu) now have substantially more girls than boys. The

gender parity ratios worsen as we move from primary to senior secondary classes; but the data

reveals not just a higher concentration of yellow and red cells in secondary and senior

secondary classes, but also a higher clustering of brown cells in the same columns (IX to XII).

This provides us an interesting insight – while the bias against girls worsens in the higher

grades, so does the bias against the boys. For instance, the number of states/UTs that show

bias against the boys grows from 5 in primary stage to 11 in senior secondary state.

This is further borne out by the box plots of primary, upper primary, secondary and senior

secondary data in Fig 4.

Fig 4: Box Plot of GPI of all Indian states and UTs between 2006 and 2011

The median for gender parity ratio for primary classes is 0.99. However, as we move towards

senior secondary classes we notice that the gap between absolute parity and the median score

goes on increasing. In addition to this, however, we also notice the inter-quartile-range

increasing from 0.05 at the primary stage to 0.26 in the senior secondary stage – indicating the

larger variations in gender parity against both boys and girls. As an example, while the parity in

Rajasthan at the senior secondary stage is as low as 0.60; it becomes as high as 1.28 in

Meghalaya.

Fig 5: GPI in all Indian states and UTs between 2006-11 showing bias against boys and girls (see in PDF)

Fourth, while the disparity against girls is decreasing in almost all states (though at different

rates) between 2006-11; in 14 of the 25 states and UTs in which gender disparity against boys

has existed in these five years, it has shown an increasing trend. This is indicated by the higher

proportion of dark-brown cells in the lower two rows of these states (2009-11) when compared

to the upper two rows (2006-08) in Fig 5.

This figure has four quadrants which contain the gender parity numbers for India and its 35

states and UTs for five years. The cells are colour coded such that dark brown represents

gender parity ratio skewed against boys, of greater than 1.03; light brown represents an

acceptable parity between 0.97 and 1.03; dark pink represents a parity skewed against girls,

between .96 and .91; and pink represents a gender parity of less than 0.9. The two upper

quadrants represent the more populous states and UTs whereas the lower quadrants represent

the states and UTs with relatively less population. Each state and UT has five rows containing

data from the year 2006-07 (top row) to the year 2010-11 (bottom row). As in Fig. 1, the first

four columns in each quadrant pertain to the ‘overall’ category (primary, upper primary,

secondary and upper secondary respectively); the second set of four columns is for SC students

and the last set of four columns contain the gender parity numbers among ST students.

The figure shows a rough correlation between population size of the states and their gender

parity ratio – with the larger states and UTs (upper quadrants) generally showing a bias against

girls and the smaller states and UTs (lower quadrants), a bias against the boys. However, other

than a handful of states and UTs which still show an overwhelming bias against girls (such as

Rajasthan, Bihar and Chhattisgarh) we see that most other states present a complex picture.

Even some of the more populous states such as U.P., West Bengal and M.P., for example, now

have a gender parity ratio skewed against boys, especially in the primary and upper primary

sections. Moreover, while states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala (and to some extent Karnataka

as well) are able to maintain acceptable levels of gender parity in the elementary and

secondary sections, they show very high level of bias against boys in the senior secondary

section. And some states and UTs such as Haryana, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Daman & Diu have

an overwhelming bias against the boys across multiple grade-ranges.

3. Drop-Out Rates

While the gender parity ratio gives us an indication of relative access to education; it would also

be useful to look at the ‘drop-out rates’ to understand to what extent children of both sexes are

able to continue their education, once they have enrolled in schools.

Fig 6 shows the drop our rates for some selected years between 1960 to 1993; and the annual

drop-out rates between 1995 and 2011, for primary-section (I-V standards); elementary section

(I-VIII standards) and secondary section (I-X standards). Each section has three columns which

contain the drop-out rates for Boys, Girls and the Total. The cells are colour-coded such that the

red and yellow shades represent high drop-out rates and the green shades represent relatively

lower drop-out numbers.

Fig 6: Drop-out rates by gender between 1961 and 2011

Fig 7 shows the trends in drop-out numbers in a graphical form - the left-hand-side column

shows the decadal improvement in drop-out numbers between the years 1960 and 2011 for

primary, elementary and secondary sections; and the right-hand-side column shows the yearly

trends between 1995 and 2011. The red line represents the drop-out rates of girls and the blue

line that of boys.

Fig 7: Changes in drop-out rates of boys and girls

Fig 6 and 7 help us notice some patterns in the data. First, though there has been significant

reduction in drop-out rates, especially since the 1980s; they continue to be unacceptably high –

at 27 percent for primary section, approximately 41 percent for elementary section and almost

50 percent for secondary section. Second, the drop-out rates for girls was considerable higher

in all three sections in the 1970s and 1980s. However, the gap in the drop-out rates of the two

genders began to noticeably reduce in the 1980s and 1990s; and in the 2000s the drop-out rates

of boys became higher in all three sections – starting from the primary section in 2002-03 to

elementary section in 2006-07 and secondary in 2009-10.

Overall, between 1961 and 2011, girls drop out in primary section has improved by 46 percent

as compared to 33 percent for boys. For elementary section, the improvements in girls drop-

out stand at 44 percent vs. 35 percent for boys; and for secondary section the improvements

stand at 39 percent for girls and 29 percent for boys.

Let us now briefly look at drop-out data desegregated at the level of states and UTs. Fig 8

contains the average drop-out rate for the years 2008-11, for all states and UTs, arranged by

category (overall, SC and ST) and gender. It should be mentioned here that the quality and

comprehensiveness of the state/UT level drop-out data, available from government sources is

somewhat limited - data for some years or categories are missing; and a failure to follow the

same conventions in presenting the data every year leads to challenges in interpreting them

consistently. Legend ID in some cells thus refers to ‘Incomplete Data’, SD indicates ‘Suspect

Data’ and ND? means that it is likely that there are no or zero drop-outs. As in other tables used

earlier, the states and UTs are arranged in descending order of their population size.

As mentioned earlier, the average drop-out rates for three years studied, is slightly less than 30

percent for primary, about 40 percent for elementary and about 50 percent for secondary

section. Interestingly, through the gender parity numbers are better for SC category when

compared to overall category; their drop-out rates are relatively worse esp. for the elementary

(~47 %) and secondary section (~58%). It thus appears that though SC students continue their

primary education approximately at the same rate as the ‘overall’ students; they tend to drop

out more before completing their elementary and secondary stages. The drop-out rates are

worst amongst the ST students – as many as 35 percent ST students drop-out right at the

primary level; and the number further increases to 57 at elementary level and 74 at secondary

level.

Fig 8: Average dropout rates of boys and girls between 2008-11 for all Indian states and UTs (see in PDF)

State and UT level data provide some other interesting insights. One of these is the extreme

variation in the drop-our rates between different states and UTs. As an example, the drop-out

rates for the primary section varies from close to zero in states such as Kerala (?) and Tamil

Nadu (?), to less than 10 in states such as Himachal, J&K, Karnataka and Delhi, to more than 40

in states such as Nagaland, Manipur, Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh and more than 50 in

Rajasthan and Meghalaya. Similarly, the drop-out rates for secondary section varies from less

than 20 percent in states such as Kerala, Puducherry and Himachal Pradesh to more than 60

percent in states such as Tripura, Odisha, Bihar and West Bengal; and more than 70 percent in

states such as Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Sikkim and Assam. Second, while some states

such as Himachal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu seem to be doing relatively better across all categories

and grades; some other states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, Meghalaya and Manipur are

doing poorly with respect to retaining their students in schools for all categories and grades.

And finally, perhaps contrary to common perceptions, the seven states of the North-East have

some of the highest drop-out rates in the country.

Fig. 9 shows the bias in the average drop-out rates (2008-11) of the two genders, for all sections

(primary, elementary and secondary), categories (overall, SC and ST) and states and UTs. The

first row, which is based on nation-level numbers, shows that the drop-out rates of boys are

higher across all three sections for the Overall and SC categories. The only exception to this

trend is among the ST students at the elementary and secondary level, where the historical

drop-out bias against the girls continues. Blue cells represent a higher drop-out rate of boys and

pink cells indicate a higher drop-out rate of girls.

Fig 9: Bias in drop-out rates against boys and girls

The figure is indicative of how gender equations are changing in Indian schools - while a table

based on data from the 1980s or 1990s would have been perhaps overwhelmingly pink -

indicating higher drop-out amongst girls in most grades and categories (Bandhopadhyay &

Subrahmanian, 2008); the picture now is far more nuanced. Despite the complexity however, a

few patterns can be discerned. For instance, while more boys than girls drop out at the primary

stage (I-V) in most states; it appears that the drop-out rates of girls (as compared to the boys)

increase at the elementary stage (I-VIII). Interestingly, this trend reverses again; and in the

secondary stage (I-X), we see more boys than girls dropping out.

As an example, among the states and UTs for which data is available for the overall category, at

the primary stage 72% show a higher drop-out amongst boys. This number reduces to 62% for

elementary stage and then climbs back again to 71% for secondary stage. The pattern is even

more clearly seen in the SC category in which, 76% states have higher drop-out amongst boys in

the primary section and 62% have higher drop amongst girls in elementary section. At the

secondary stage, however, the percentage of states which have higher drop-out amongst boys

increases to 55%. It thus appears that within the overall trend of higher drop-out of boys in most

categories and grades, there is another micro-trend – proportionally more girls drop out

between VI-VIII standards (potential reasons could be related to adolescence) and

proportionally more boys drop-out in the IX and X standard (perhaps due to pressures of earning

an income).

4. Other Parameters

We have noted the changes in the two parameters of gender parity ratios and drop-out rates in

Indian schools over the last few decades. Though covering other educational parameters in

detail is not within the scope of this paper, a couple of additional points could be made.

A research monograph titled Gender Equity in Education: A Review of Trends and Factors, based

largely on educational data till the year 2004-05 and published in coordination with NUEPA,

New Delhi notes that, “Increased female enrolment is…compromised by persistently high rates

of drop-out and poor attendance of girls relative to boys”. A sample survey in 21 major states of

the country, commissioned by EdCIL on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resource Development

a few years later (in 2008-09); however, remarks that “information was collected (based on

visits to over 4000 primary and upper primary schools) on…attendance of children in each

grade of the sampled schools on the day of visit…from the attendance registers of respective

grades and attendance was checked by actual head count of children in each grade” and the

study found that the grade wise attendance of girls for all grades between I and VIII was either

equal to or marginally better than that of boys: “Among the primary and upper primary stage,

highest variation in attendance rates between boys and girls was observed in the states of

Karnataka and Kerala. In Karnataka 87.4 % girls were present against 81.1% boys in primary

schools. Similarly in upper primary grades, 94.1% girls were present against 83.6% boys. The

percentage of girls present was more by 5% points than boys at the upper primary stage in the

states of Kerala (94.1%, 83.6% respectively) and Uttarakhand (78.4%, 71.9% respectively).”

(TNS, 2013)

Fig 10: Attendance rates by gender and grades

Similarly, while comprehensive national and state level data on academic performance of both

genders are difficult to come by; if one were to go by the results of the XIIth and Xth

examinations of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and Indian Certificate of

Secondary Education (ICSE), it appears that (among the select students who appear for these

examinations) girls are performing better than boys academically as well.

For example, while the pass percentage of girls in CBSE XII exams in 2013-14 stood at 88.52 the

pass percentage of boys was lesser by more than 10 percent and stood at 78.27. The results in

2012-13 were similar (87.98 % for girls and 77.78 % for boys). For the CBSE X exams too, the

pass percentage of girls was better than that of boys; and the results of the ICSE X exams also

showed a similar gap in favour of girls. [Refer: additional note g]

5. International Trends

The above discussions raise the question of whether the changing equations of gender parity in

Indian schools are isolated phenomena; or whether they are part of larger international trends.

A report published by the Canadian Council on Learning and the Bosch Foundation in 2011,

starts by noting that the issue of “boy gap” in education has been the subject of increasing

attention across a number of OECD countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development which comprises 34 developed nations). “Attention in several OECD jurisdictions

has shifted in some circles in the past number of years to the phenomenon of a substantial

shortfall of the percentage of males, compared to females, who complete secondary schooling”

it says. “The implications of this “boy gap” are increasingly being pondered in such countries as

Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. The statistical picture in terms of this gender gap, as

shown in literacy rates, school achievement in literacy, and participation and success in

university studies, has been quite clear in such jurisdictions for two decades and more.”

(Cappon, 2011) In 1970, 58% of college graduates in the United States were young men. Girls

started moving ahead of boys around 1990; and today women earn about 60 percent of

associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the US; and have also begun to gradually

outpace men in obtaining Ph.D.s. (Thomson, n.d.) Similarly, as per a recent report in The

Guardian, in the UK, significantly more girls applied to the university this year as compared to

the boys. “Overall girls now outperform boys from the early years through to postgraduate

qualifications” the report noted. The situation, in fact, has led to vigorous debates and a

number of publications in these countries about the educational and social impacts of this

significant change. (See additional notes [h] for an indicative list)

This trend is not restricted to the Western countries – the World Atlas of Gender Equality in

Education, which is based on data from 181 countries and was published by UNESCO in 2012,

notes that "developed countries now talk about gender gaps that favour females in education,

and similar patterns are evident at some levels in developing countries even though boys

continue to enjoy an advantage in many such countries. As girls’ educational expectations rise

at a faster pace than those of boys, so does their academic performance as measured by

persistence, repetition, academic achievement and transition into secondary education.” It also

notes that while “enrolments have been rising (worldwide) since 1970 for both sexes, girls’

enrolments have been increasing faster than those of boys at both the primary and secondary

levels”; and “gender is a significant factor in school survival in almost every country in the world

regardless of its state of development, with boys usually dropping out at much higher rates

than girls.”(UNESCO, 2012)

The changes at the school-level are now also reflecting at the level of tertiary education, which

has seen a remarkable growth in most parts of the world. As the report mentions, “there have

been major expansions at this level in every region of the world and women have been the

principal beneficiaries in all regions. Female enrolment at the tertiary level has grown almost

twice as fast as that of men over the last four decades” (ibid); which has resulted in the global

gender parity index at tertiary level changing from 0.74 (favouring men) in 1970 to 1.08

(favouring women) in 2009.

6. Discussion

Historically, our society, as most other societies in the world, has given more opportunities to

males over females in education; and this was reflected in the social and educational policies of

the past. The last two to three decades, however, has seen a number of focused policies and

plans being formulated and implemented for helping girls ‘catch-up’ with the boys in terms of

access; and also, more broadly, to improve girls’ education in the country.

The discussions in the preceding sections, however, while on the one hand have highlighted the

relevance of the intersectional approach to understanding the issue of unequal access in Indian

schools; on the other hand, have also pointed to the risks and limitations of treating certain

dimensions or axes of discrimination as unchanging rather than dynamic. In India, as in many

other developing nations, “priority attention continues to be centred on the barriers and

obstacles faced by females in education”. The 12th Planning Commission’s report, for instance,

continues to focus heavily on education of girls’ and SC and ST children; while no mention is

made of the challenges being faced by boys. While the need to do much more to address the

issues of both access and quality of girls’ education must clearly be acknowledged; in this

paper, my objective has been to explore the changing equations of gender parity in Indian

schools, and in doing so highlight the need for a more balanced and grounded public policy and

program response.

Three broad-scale trends can perhaps be summarized here. First, thanks to increased

awareness about and attention on girls’ education – both, amongst the general population as

well as experts/policy makers and the governments – the national level gender parity and girls’

drop-out numbers have shown a clear and consistent improvement over the last two decades,

across all grade ranges and categories. And though there is still a lot of ground to cover in a

number of states on this parameter, especially at secondary and senior secondary level, it can

be reasonably inferred from the data that there is a welcome momentum in favour of girls’

education in the country; and a possibility of expanding the discourse from parity to equality.

Second, if we look at state and UT level data, we notice the worrying trend that improvement in

girls’ education is not necessarily leading to gender parity in education in the states. Rather,

more than two-third sates and UTs now have a substantial bias against the boys in at least one

of the grade-ranges and categories. Moreover, in a majority of states in which bias against boys

has existed in the five years studied (2006-11); the bias has shown an increasing trend.

And finally, if we were to look at the international trends, we notice that the above are not

isolated phenomena. In many developed countries, and now increasingly, even in developing

countries, girls are doing substantially better than boys on various parameters, such as gender

parity index, drop-out rates, academic achievements and enrollment to tertiary education.

This fact – that girls are doing better than boys in education in many countries, both in terms of

participation rates as well as academic achievements, from the primary classes to postgraduate

levels - may perhaps appear alien to many of us in India. It could perhaps even be seen as

primarily a ‘first world problem’; as we continue to come across media and research reports on

the challenges we face with regards to girls’ education in the country. But if we were to connect

the three points discussed above (state, national and international trends), it could be

cautiously but reasonably inferred that there is a need for specific attention and measures - by

the government and policy makers, researchers and civil society organizations (such as focused

studies to understand the challenges faced by boys, state or national level policy interventions

etc.) for boys’ education; in the absence of which the pendulum of gender parity may swing to

the other side in the coming decades, placing us once more in a difficult situation, albeit this

time with respect to boys education.

References

Bandhopadhyay M and Subrahmanian R (2008) Gender Equity in Education: A Review of Trends and

Factors. Consortium for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and Equity

Benn, M. (2014, February 1). The education gender gap is bad for girls as well as boys. The Guardian.

Retrieved June 7, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/education-

gender-gap-girls-schools-university

Cappon P (2011) Exploring the boy crisis in education. Canadian Council on Learning

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of

Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal

Forum 140:139-167

Davis K (2008) Intersectionality as buzzword. Feminist Theory. Vol. 9(1): 67–85.

Gender equality in and through education (2010) Swedish Agency for Development Evaluation

Government of India (1955) Universalization of elementary education: A status paper. Ministry of

Human Resource Development. Department of Education. Retrieved June 7, 2014, from

http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/r/2R/7Q/2R7Q0A01.htm

Government of Indian (1986) National Policy on Education National Policy on Education. New Delhi:

GOI.

Government of India (2000) SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN: PROGRAMME FOR UNIVERSAL ELEMENTARY

EDUCATION IN INDIA. Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, MHRD, Government of India,

New Delhi, 2000.

Government of Indian (2013) Twelfth Five Year Plan. Volume 3. Planning Commission, Government of

India

NCERT (2006) Position Paper of National Focus Group on Gender Issues in Education

Ramachandran, V. (1998) Girls’ and Women’s Education: Policies and Implementation Mechanisms. Case Study: India. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

Ramachandran V (2003) Gender equality in education in India. UNESCO

Ramachandran V (2009) Towards Gender Equality in Education Gender Equity in Education: A Review of

Trends and Factors. National University of Education Planning and Administration. New Delhi.

Thomson, M. (n.d.) Why Do So Many Boys Not Care About School? Retrieved 7 June, 2014 from

http://www.pbs.org/parents/experts/archive/2011/01/why-so-many-boys-dont-care-abo.html

TNS (2013) Survey for Assessment of Dropout Rates at Elementary Level in 21 States Retrieved

June 7, 2014, from http://ssa.nic.in/research-studies-document_old/survey-report-on-out-of-school-

children/list-of-studies/Dropout%20Study%2021%20States.pdf

UNESCO (1990) World Declaration on Education For All Meeting Basic Learning Needs. Retrieved June 7,

2014, from http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/en-conf/Jomtien%20Declaration%20eng.shtm

UNESCO (2000) The Dakar framework for action. Word Education Forum. Retrieved June 7, from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf

UNICEF (2009) Towards Gender Equality in Education: Progress and Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region

UNESCO (2012) World Atlast of Gender Equality in Education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization. Paris.

Winker G. and Degele N. (2011) Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with social inequality.

European Journal of Women’s Studies 18(1) 51–66

Additional Notes:

[a] World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal adopted the six Education For All (EFA) goals

which are as below:

(i) expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for

the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children;

(ii) ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and

those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete, free and compulsory

primary education of good quality;

(iii) ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable

access to appropriate learning and life-skills programmes;

(iv) achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for

women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults;

(v) eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving

gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to

and achievement in basic education of good quality;

(vi) improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that

recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy,

numeracy and essential life skills

[b] Gross enrolment ratio in a specific level of education, is a ratio of total enrolment regardless

of age at that level and the eligible official school-age population corresponding to the same

level of education in a given school-year

[c] Fig. below shows the improvement in the gender parity in all four grade-ranges, between

90-91 and 10-11 for the SC category. When one compares the trends in ‘Overall’ category with

the ‘SC’ category, a number of points stand out. For example, a sudden spurt in the

improvement in gender parity in primary classes in the ‘overall’ category in 1992-93 (to the

tune of 13%) does not seem be reflected or driven by similar improvement in the SC category

(which stood at about 4%). However, there seems to have been substantial improvement in the

gender parity of VI-VIII grades in that period. Moreover, this increase, unlike in the ‘overall’

category, was further improved upon in the following year. There seem to have been other

spurts in 1996-97 and 1998-99, again specifically in the VI-VIII standards (Why?).

The spurt in improvement in gender parity in 2002-03 seems to have helped all grades-bands,

as in the general category; however, in the year 2004-05, there was a dip across all grades, and

for the IX-X grades it was as high as 20%. This sudden decrease in gender parity across all

grades between the years 2004-07 is a phenomenon unique to the children of SC category

(Why?). The year 2007-08, on the other hand, seems to have been a particularly good year

across all class bands, for the SC category - unlike the more muted change in the overall

category. (Why?)

By the year 2010-11, parity numbers were better for SC students across all grades when

compared to the students of the overall category.

And finally, the Fig. above shows the improvement in the gender parity for the ST category.

Here again, we see a sharp rise in the gender parity between 1992 and 1994. The improvement

in standards VI-VIII is especially remarkable during this phase, as it continues till 1994-95. As

with the other categories, the second spurt was witnessed in early 2000s; however, in the case

of ST children a relatively sharp increase started in 2001-02, rather than 2002-03 (Why?).

Comparison between the 3 graphs, as noted earlier, shows that gender parity is poorest among

children of ST category; especially in the secondary and upper secondary classes.

[d] GoI, 1995, in a chapter titled District Primary Education Programme, notes that “The

strategies for UEE have hitherto emphasised mainly access in terms of construction of class

rooms and appointment of teachers. This has been inadequate and needs to be augmented

by…[a]ddressing the more difficult aspects of access, particularly access to girls, disadvantaged

groups and out of school children”. Similarly the MHRD, GoI, states that SSA was guided by a

number of principles which include, “Access, not to be confined to ensuring that a school

becomes accessible to all children within specified distance but implies an understanding of the

educational needs and predicament of the traditionally excluded categories – the SC, ST and

others sections of the most disadvantaged groups, the Muslim minority, girls in general, and

children with special needs.” And also that “Gender concern, implying not only an effort to

enable girls to keep pace with boys but to view education in the perspective spelt out in the

National Policy on Education 1986 /92; i.e. a decisive intervention to bring about a basic change

in the status of women.” And “Education of girls, especially those belonging to the scheduled

castes and scheduled tribes, will be one of the principal concerns in SarvaShiksha Abhiyan.”

http://ssa.nic.in/main_page

[e] “In discussing education and gender it is helpful to distinguish between “gender parity” and

“gender equality” Gender parity aims at achieving equal participation for girls and boys in

education. Gender equality is understood more broadly as the right to gain access and

participate in education, as well as to benefit from gender-sensitive and gender-responsive

educational environments and to obtain meaningful education outcomes that ensure that

education benefits translate into greater participation in social, economic and political

development of their societies. Achieving gender parity is therefore understood as only a first

step towards gender equality.” Addressing gender stereotyping in textbooks and schools,

sensitizing teachers and parents on gender related issues, improving learning outcomes and so

on, subsequently become more important.

[f] Different policies/plans targeted to improve girls education in India:

Some other programs/schemes started in early 2000s include Kasturba Ghandhi Balika

Vidyalaya and National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementray Level (NPEGEL)

[g] CBSE Press Notes: http://cbse.gov.in/attach/Press%20Note-

Class%20X%20Result(1)_2014.pdf

XII 2013: http://cbse.nic.in/Post%20result%20press%20note%20XII%202013%20(Eng).pdf

XII 2014: http://www.theindianrepublic.com/nation/girls-outshine-boys-class-12-cbse-exams-

100037756.html

[h] Some books on the topic include The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind in

School and Life authored by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens; The War Against Boys: How

Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers; Boys Adrift: The

Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young

Men by Leonard Sax; and Hear Our Cry: Boys In Crisis by Paul D. Slocumb