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 Womens 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 womenIt 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 86
th
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 12
th
Planning Commission notes, Girls account for the majority
(73.5%) of the additional enrolment of children between 200607 and 200910. 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 Kimberl 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 2
nd
to 5
th
column on the left contain the Overall gender parity; columns 6
th
to 9
th

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 iscompromised 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) onattendance of children in each
grade of the sampled schools on the day of visitfrom 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
associates, bachelors and masters 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 12
th
Planning Commissions 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): 6785.
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 Womens 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 Womens Studies 18(1) 5166
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