Register with us

IWWAGE-Institute for What Works to Advance Gender Equality

Gender Gap in Private School Enrolment Reiterates Gendered Investment by Households on Education

India experienced a steady rise in private school enrolment post 2015, both in absolute numbers and as a share of total enrolment. After a moderate dip during COVID-19, the share started rising again from 2022-23. A parallel trend has been the persistent gender-gap in private school enrolment shares- greater proportion of boys being enrolled in private-unaided schools as compared to girls, and the gap remaining almost similar in the last five years. At the national level, 33 percent girls were enrolled in private schools as compared to 39 percent boys during 2023-24, according to latest statistics released by UDISE Plus. The private school enrolment shares were high for both boys (72 percent) and girls (68 percent) at the pre-primary level, resulting in a lower gender-gap of 4 percentage points (Graph 1). At the primary and upper-primary level, the share of enrolment in government and government-aided schools increases substantially, alongside an increase in gender gap in private school enrolment. At secondary and higher secondary levels, while private school enrolment increases for all students, the gender gap persists at 6 to 7 percentage points with boys having a higher representation compared to girls. Additionally, these differences are much starker in certain states than the national average of 6 percentage points, and often increases with levels of education. Gender gap in private school enrolment is an effective indicator to reflect households’ preferences in investment on children. What do these preferences reflect? What could be the possible reasons behind this trend?

 

Graph 1: Share of enrolment across types of school management for different levels of education, by gender, All India, 2023-24 (%)

Source: Report on UDISE Plus, 2023-24, Ministry of Education, Government of India. Link: https://udiseplus.gov.in/#/en/page/publications

 

A deep drive into the states, highlights considerable variations either in terms of gender-gap in overall private school enrolment or its variation across levels of schooling. For instance, while the gender-gap in preference for private schools is relatively higher in Delhi, it does not vary much by level of schooling and ranges between 8 to 9 percentage points across all levels of schooling. On the contrary, the gender-gap in share of private school enrolment increases alongside increase in level of school education in Tamil Nadu from 4 to 9 percentage points between primary and higher secondary. Similarly, in Rajasthan where almost one-third of total schools are private-unaided, there is an even starker rise in gender gap in private school enrolment from 9.3 percentage points at primary to 12.6 at upper-primary and 14.3 at secondary levels. Thus, in certain states, preference for private schools for boys is much higher at secondary and higher secondary levels than at elementary. This trend reiterates that when costs of education become higher, households tend to invest much more in boys than in girls. In contrast, gender gap in private school enrolment is negligible in Kerala across all levels of school education. Moreover, the share of private school enrolment declines with increasing levels of school education. This indicates not only equity in access to school education in Kerala, but also preference for government schools especially at secondary level.

 

It is important to emphasize that private school education may not always be synonymous with good quality education. Therefore, parents’ willingness to spend more on the education of boys by sending them to private schools might not always result in greater returns in future. A considerable proportion of private schools in India fall under the so-called ‘low-fee’ category that primarily cater to the low-income families. Some of the characteristics of private schools that attract parents include English being the medium of instruction, focus on measurable outcomes and perceived quality. However, extensive focus of the low-fee private schools on cost efficiency and learning outcomes without adequate focus on holistic development of children and teacher training, is a cause of concern regarding the quality of education.[1] Past research has highlighted that many low-fee private schools neither provide quality nor confer status.[2] Another study focusing on low-cost private schools in Delhi and NCR, primarily attended by children from economically disadvantaged families, observed poor learning achievement in English language at primary level. This deficit negatively impacted children’s ability to comprehend other subjects as well.[3] On the other hand, while thin spreading of State resources to conform to increasing demand for education, has to some extent, negatively impacted the quality of public education in many states in India, government schools are mandated by the RTE Act, 2009 to adhere to guidelines for holistic child development, social justice, inclusivity and to ensure last mile accessibility. Therefore, government schools can impart both good quality education as well as holistic development of children, if managed well. States such as Delhi and Kerala are notable examples with government schools accounting for a significant share of overall school enrolment.

 

Sending a child to a private school demands considerably higher out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures from households since per-child costs are much higher in private than in government schools. Therefore, a higher proportion of boys in private schools indicates greater investment in education of boys than of girls by households. Since the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 mandates free elementary education in government schools, households’ OOP expenditure per student in government schools is minimum at elementary level, and mostly spent in private tuitions or conveyance. In comparison, average per student expenditures in private-unaided schools at primary and upper-primary levels were higher than those in government schools by 11 times and 8 times respectively, as per estimates from latest data available for 2017-18 from NSSO’s household survey on education.[4]As children transition from elementary to secondary grades, while OOP expenditures increase across all types of schools, the rise is much steeper in private-unaided. For instance, average per-child expenditure at higher-secondary level in a private school in India during 2017-18, was almost four times higher than that in government schools (Rs. 7006 in government schools vs. 25,858 in private schools during 2017-18).

 

Past research suggests multiple reasons behind gendered human capital investment. Prevailing socio-cultural norms around gender play an overarching role. Overall differential treatment of sons and daughters predominantly stems from social norms, resulting in discrimination of girls across multiple aspects including investment in education.[5] Education is seen as an investment that yields future returns which is comparable to other investments .[6] Primary reasons cited by Indian parents behind preference for private schools as reported by UNESCO during 2021-22 were: perception of better quality, English as a medium of instruction, and private schools being a marker of higher status in society.i These characteristics are believed to improve an individual’s future employability as well. However, pecuniary incentives to invest in women’s education are believed to be less as most women either join the workforce in smaller numbers or exit sooner, which adversely impact financial returns. Gordan (2021)[7] who studied shifts in mother’s aspirations for their daughters’ education, found a complex interplay between economic factors and shifting socio-cultural norms. Although the gender gap in educational investments was found to have reduced over time, it was still found to be prevalent especially in rural areas. Foster & Rosenzweigh (2001)[8] located the practice of patrilocal exogamy–women marrying men from different villages and moving in with their husband’s family– limiting the economic benefits that parents can gain from investing in their daughters’ education. Also, the social costs of women working may outweigh the financial benefits for households, thus reducing the likelihood of parents investing in their daughters’ education. More importantly, societal expectations for women to be the primary caregivers still govern household decisions with regard to investment in education.

 

The persistent gender gap in private school enrollment in India, particularly above elementary level, reflects a broader pattern of gendered investment in education by households driven by socio-cultural norms and expected pecuniary returns in future. While boys are prioritized in terms of access to private schooling, especially as the financial costs of education rises at higher levels, girls often face constraints due to societal expectations around their roles and the perceived lower returns on investment in education. Regional variations further complicate the picture, with certain states showing a more pronounced gender gap, indicating greater prevalence of gendered social norms. Overall, addressing the disparities in quality of education across both private and public schools is the need of the hour, to ensure equal access to good quality education to students irrespective of their gender and across socio-economic strata.

This blog is written by Mridusmita Bordoloi, Economist at IWWAGE,  Sharati Roy, Research Associate at IWWAGE

 

Footnotes

1. Bhatty, K., Bordoloi, M., Kapur, A., Hamza, M., & Singh, A. (2022). Regulation of Non-State Actors in School Education in India. Link: Paper commissioned for the 2022 Global Education Monitoring Report, South Asia -Non-state actors in education. UNESCO.  https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383519
2. Chattopadhay, T., & Roy, M. (2017). Low-Fee Private Schools in India:The Emerging Fault Lines, Working Paper 233. https://ncspe.tc.columbia.edu/working-papers/files/WP233.pdf
3.  Endow, T. (2018). Inferior Outcomes: Learning in Low-cost English-medium Private Schools—A Survey in Delhi and National Capital Region. Indian Journal of Human Development. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0973703018779725

5.   Rashmi, R., Malik, B. K., Mohanty, S., Mishra, U. S., & Subramanian, S. V. (2022). Predictors of the gender gap in household educational spending among school and college-going children in India. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01350-x

6.    Leoni, S. (2023). A Historical Review of the Role of Education: From Human Capital to Human Capabilities. Review of Political Economy. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09538259.2023.2245233

7. Gordan, R. (2021). Your mind becomes open with education’: exploring mothers’ aspirations for girls’ education in rural Bihar. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057925.2021.1976616 

8. Foster, A., & Rosenzweigh, M. R. (2001). Missing Women, the Marriage Market and Economic Growth. https://adfdell.pstc.brown.edu/papers/sex.pdf
Panel Discussion: Propelling India’s Care Economy – Achievements, Challenges, and Strategies for the Future

Panel Discussion: Propelling India’s Care Economy – Achievements, Challenges, and Strategies for the Future

See the panel recording

On 10 March 2025, IWWAGE hosted a compelling panel discussion titled “Propelling India’s Care Economy: Achievements, Challenges, and Strategies for the Future” at the NGO Forum of the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69). The session convened State representatives, CSO partners, and global experts to explore India’s progress in implementing the Beijing Declaration commitments, with a sharp focus on the care economy.

Key Highlights:

Smt. Smriti Sharan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India highlighted the disproportionate care burden on women, noting that globally, women spend 2.5 times more on unpaid care work than men. Citing the UN Gender Snapshot Report 2023, she warned that by 2030, over 340 million women and girls could be living in extreme poverty, with 1 in 4 facing food insecurity. She commended GoI initiatives such as DAY-NRLM, MGNREGA, and ICDS, which support women’s livelihoods while providing care assistance. However, she stressed the need to expand and scale up these services. Sharan also advocated for greater convergence between national and state-level programmes, referencing Karnataka’s Koosina Mane scheme, which integrates Panchayati Raj and MGNREGA to offer childcare infrastructure for working mothers. She further emphasised the role of technological innovations in data collection and monitoring to improve care services and identify best practices.

Dr. discussed the role of legislation in enhancing care infrastructure, highlighting the Factories Act, which mandates crèches in establishments with 30 or more employees. He also referenced the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, which allocates funding for setting up crèche facilities at work sites. He announced that Karnataka would soon introduce a menstrual leave policy for women employees in the formal sector—a progressive step towards creating more gender-inclusive workplaces. Dr. Manjunath Gangadhara, Additional Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations) Government of Karnataka also stressed the need for redistributing care responsibilities through social reforms, advocating for synergies between CSO initiatives and government schemes.

Kelsey Harris,  Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Global Development called for increased public investment in equitable and quality care services. She recommended a goal of allocating 3–10% of national incomes to public care services by 2030, with 1% of GDP dedicated to pre-primary education and 10% of education budgets allocated to early childhood learning. She emphasised the need for transparent public data on care spending, particularly for children under three and long-term care services, which are often under-reported. Kelsey also highlighted the importance of strengthening social protection systems, especially for informal workers, people with disabilities, and the self-employed. She urged governments to aim for 75% population coverage by 2030, ensuring financial security and access to quality care.

Gala Díaz Langou, Executive Director, CIPPEC shared Argentina’s experience in reducing care burdens through increased access to education. She noted that the country saw a 35% drop in fertility rates between 2014 and 2022, largely due to improved education reducing teen pregnancies and, consequently, care responsibilities for young women. She also showcased Colombia’s Manzanas del Cuidado programme, which offers free, block-level care services to caregivers. These spaces provide education, training, healthcare, and mental health support, enabling caregivers to access economic and educational opportunities. Gala further highlighted Mexico’s Utopias model, which integrates healthcare, skilling, and education services for care receivers, creating a comprehensive care ecosystem.

Sumitra Mishra, CEO, Mobile Creches emphasised the need for granular, community-level data and scalable pilot programmes to shape effective care policies. She highlighted the growing involvement of philanthropic foundations in funding large-scale pilots on rural childcare, citing initiatives in Bihar (Jeevika platform) and Karnataka, where SHG models are being used to experiment with care services. Sumitra also stressed the lack of standards and regulations in the private sector for care facilities, calling for the introduction of a national registry for crèches. She urged corporates to integrate childcare into their ESG mandates, committing funds towards care infrastructure. She concluded by highlighting the importance of community trust-building, noting that even the poorest families would not use childcare services without trust and confidence in their quality.

The panel concluded with a powerful call to action: strengthening care systems through policy reforms, increased public investment, and cross-sector collaboration is essential to ensuring women’s full and equitable participation in the economy.

Trends in Female Labour and Workforce Participation – Karnataka

Karnataka, despite being India’s IT hub, has a lower female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) than the national average. While women’s literacy exceeds 68%, many are engaged in unpaid household work or casual labour. Recent developments, like the ‘Shakti’ scheme, have positively impacted FLFPR by providing safe and affordable transportation, leading to increased workforce participation. However, disparities remain, as highlighted by the PLFS 2023-24 survey. This factsheet explores the trends, challenges, and policy implications affecting women’s participation in Karnataka’s labour market.

Trends in Female Labour and Workforce Participation – Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu has successfully combined rapid economic growth with strong social development, emerging as India’s most urbanized state and ranking third on the Human Development Index. The state’s female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) surpasses the national average, driven by both manufacturing in urban areas and agriculture in rural regions. Key schemes like Pudhumai Penn, Vidiyal Payanam, and Amma Skill and Employment Training have played a vital role in boosting women’s employment. Additionally, initiatives such as the ‘Thozhi’ hostel programme have provided safe housing for women migrating to cities, further supporting their workforce participation. This factsheet, using data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), explores the various dimensions of women’s employment in Tamil Nadu.

IWWAGE Bi-Monthly Seminar: Gender Transformative Evaluation- Why and How?

IWWAGE Bi-Monthly Seminar: Gender Transformative Evaluation- Why and How?

Jahnvi Andharia, Director and Research Fellow at Institute for Social Studies Trust along with her colleague Alpaxee Kashyap joined us for a seminar series on July 11, 2024 to discuss Gender Transformative Evaluations.

The seminar started with a discussion on the history of evaluation and the importance of context in evaluation right from its origin. It was realized soon enough that change can only be measured through certain kinds of frameworks. An evaluator’s job then becomes to identify the right kind of measurement framework given the context accounting for both strengths and weaknesses. The discussion further progressed into origins of Voluntary Organization for Professional Evaluation (VOPEs) and evolution of evaluation as it became a government function initially because of the monetary and human resource aspect which only a government body could possess. As ‘evaluation’ expanded to both government and non-government programs, multiple stakeholders entered the picture. This also led to “engendering evaluation”. The focus of the discussion further shifted to engaging participants on differentiating between change and transformation. Change is conceptualized as a shorter-term response to new external factors but transformation is often an internal and a fundamental evolution in the belief system of individuals. Change can be small and incremental; however, transformation is always large and significant. Lastly, transformation may not require any external influence to maintain it but more foundational shifts from within. Transformations might not be necessarily positive and their impact can only be determined later.

As suggested by the discussion, transformation is a spectrum. Before understanding Gender Transformative Evaluation, one must understand different levels of how any evaluation constitutes Gender. Evaluations in its objective can choose to decide whether it wants to include ‘gender’ and how based on these different levels.

Level 1: Gender Discriminatory- Any program that perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing unbalanced norms, roles and relations.

Level 2: Gender Blind- This suggests any evaluation/program that is neutral to gender norms, roles and relations. In terms of such evaluation, the objective might not go beyond surface level involvement of men and women without understanding gender norms.

Level 3: Gender Sensitive- Unlike previous types of evaluation, this approach considers gender roles, norms and relations. However, it does not go a further step to address inequality created by such unequal norms.

Level 4: Gender Responsive- This approach takes that step and investigates whether an intervention/program has actually responded to gender specific needs.

Level 5: Gender Transformative- Any approach of evaluation is truly gender transformative if it questions power structures and includes ways of transforming gender norms and promotes gender equality in the longer run.

The speakers urged the participants to identify key differences between research and evaluation. Through an interactive discussion, it was concluded that the key difference between research and evaluation is that research can be the creation of new knowledge but evaluation has a specific purpose to assess an activity, program or strategy. Evaluation aims to improve something and includes specific people for which the evaluation is considered- beneficiaries, implementers, government and non-government bodies etc.

Through rounds of discussion and interaction, the participants also developed a better understanding on the nature of Evaluation and what can make them Transformative. It was realized that the objective of evaluation is often very limited and this restricts transformation. Traditional indicators of measurement during evaluation often focus on achievable outputs and not outcomes. Outcomes require more time and if the evaluation fails to understand whether the current outputs actually leads to better outcomes, such evaluation won’t reveal the true picture of what is happening with the intervention.

Finally, in order to truly understand Gender Transformative Evaluations, one must develop an understanding of intersectionality, equity and human rights. The discussion also introduced various operational challenges especially in terms of budget in conducting Gender Transformative Evaluation. Overall, as a domain Evaluation requires an in-depth understanding of purpose, criteria, methodology, stakeholder analysis, data collection methods and finally incorporation of gender to develop deeper understanding of the hierarchies in the system. Before concluding, the discussion also went into some detail on conflicting perspectives that evaluators might face and the significance of maintaining strong research methods combining a mixed approach in Evaluation.

Rachita Malik
Rachita Malik

Head – Communications and External Engagement

Rachita Malik is a development professional with over 12 years’ experience leading communication portfolios for national and international organisations. She specialises in Communication for Development, Health Systems Strengthening, Public Health, and Nutrition, and has worked with Piramal Foundation, UNICEF (consultant), Save the Children, and Navjyoti India Foundation.

A passionate traveller, she finds the greatest joy in working with children and aspires to contribute towards a world where every child realises their right to survival, protection, development, and participation. Rachita holds a Master’s degree in Development Communication and Extension from Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi.

Sharati Madhur Roy
Sharati Madhur Roy

Research Associate

Sharati holds a Master’s in Political Science from the University of Delhi and a Bachelor’s from Lady Shri Ram College for Women. Her research interests include human development and international politics, with a focus on gender.

She has experience working with central and state government bodies. In her free time, Sharati enjoys reading and exploring films and theatre in the city.

Aditi Vyas
ADITI VYAS

Associate Director – Research & Policy

Aditi brings over 14 years of expertise in gender, youth development, education, and economic empowerment. She excels in designing impactful programmes, conducting qualitative research, and advancing evidence-based policy initiatives for gender equity.

Before joining IWWAGE, Aditi worked with ICRW on developing assessment tools for teachers and systems under the Life Skills Collaborative and evaluating the impact of COVID-19 policies on informal women workers in Delhi NCR through the REBUILD project. She has also developed a gender-integrated life skills curriculum for adolescent girls, licensed by Gap Inc., and led curriculum development and trainer sessions for programmes funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

Aditi holds a bachelor’s degree in History from Delhi University, a master’s in Modern Indian History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, and a master’s in the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology from the University of Oxford.

IWWAGE at Global Evaluation Initiatives gLOCAL Evaluation Week 2024

IWWAGE at Global Evaluation Initiative’s gLOCAL Evaluation Week 2024

 

On 3rd June 2024, a panel discussion titled “Evaluating Gaps in Women Empowerment Indices and Strategies to Bridge Them” explored the complexities of measuring women’s empowerment. Moderated by Dr. Arpita Paul, the session featured panellists Mridusmita Bordoloi (IWWAGE) and Dr. Vikash Vaibhav (O.P. Jindal Global University). Key discussions included:

  • Examining global and Indian methodologies for assessing women’s empowerment.
  • Identifying dimensions of empowerment that remain unmeasured, particularly in the Indian context.
  • Highlighting data availability and quality limitations while proposing innovative approaches for more accurate measurement.
  • Developing strategies to address gaps in empowerment indices, such as state-level comparable indices and inclusive, intersectional frameworks.

The session emphasised the importance of holistic indicators and reliable data to inform effective policy making. Watch the session recording here

 

On 5th June 2024, IWWAGE hosted a panel discussion titled “Childcare and Women’s Work: Are These Connected?” to address the significant barrier that unpaid childcare responsibilities pose to women’s participation in the labour force. Moderated by Prakriti Sharma, the panel featured insights from Bidisha Mondal, Divya Singh Kohli, and Sruthi Kutty. The discussion focused on:

  • Exploring how access to reliable and affordable childcare can empower women economically.
  • Highlighting the potential of childcare solutions to boost women’s workforce participation.
  • Stressing the need for comprehensive policy interventions to address childcare responsibilities effectively.

Both events underscored the importance of targeted solutions and robust policies to advance women’s empowerment and economic inclusion in India. Watch the session recording here