Introduction

India has long struggled with gender inequities in education. Despite government efforts like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao and steady progress in enrolment, where girls now form 48% of the school population and even surpass men in gross enrolment ratios in higher education, financial investment by families continues to tilt in favor of boys. The 80th round of the National Sample Survey (Comprehensive Modular Survey on Education) reveals that boys consistently receive higher expenditure allocations across school stages and states, highlighting deep-rooted social biases in household decision-making.

Significance of the recent NSS report

1. New evidence: The 2024 survey covered 52,085 households and data for 57,742 students, making it one of the most comprehensive datasets on education expenditure.
2. Contradiction with enrolment success: Despite progress in closing gender enrolment gaps, the spending patterns show that financial priorities still favor boys.
3. Striking gap: In urban India, families spend ₹2,791 less per girl compared to boys, while in rural India, boys get 18% more spent on them.
4. Long-term concern: Such expenditure biases translate into inequities in learning outcomes, employability, and overall empowerment.

Gender patterns in household spending on education

1. All stages of schooling: Per-student expenditure on girls is consistently lower than boys from pre-primary to higher secondary.
2. Rural-urban divide: Rural families spend ₹1,373 more on boys; urban families spend 30% more on boys by higher secondary level.
3. Course fees: Families pay on average 21.5% more in fees for boys.

Private vs government schooling:

1. 58.4% of girls are in government schools.
2. 34% of boys access private unaided schools compared to 29.5% of girls.
3. Tuition classes: While enrollment in coaching is similar (26% girls vs 27.8% boys), expenditure differs, by higher secondary, families spend 22% more on tuition for boys.

State-level variations in educational expenditure

1. Delhi, MP, Rajasthan, Punjab: More than 10 percentage points gender gap in private school enrolment.
2. Tamil Nadu and Kerala: Gender parity—boys and girls access government and private schools almost equally.
3. Northeast States: Reverse trend—more girls enrolled in private schools.
4. Telangana, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal: Families spend vastly more on boys at higher secondary level.
   • Example: In Tamil Nadu, families spend ₹35,973 on boys vs ₹19,412 on girls.
5. Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh: More spending on girls at higher secondary, partly due to safety-related transport costs.

Gender gap in private coaching expenditure

1. Himachal Pradesh: Families spend ₹9,813 per boy vs ₹1,550 per girl on higher secondary tuition.
2. Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu: Also show significant tuition expenditure gaps.
3. Implication: Coaching is seen as a gateway to competitive exams and better career prospects—girls being left out deepens structural disadvantages.

Broader implications for gender equality

1. Hidden inequality: Enrolment parity does not mean equity in quality or investment.
2. Future workforce impact: Lower spending on girls limits their human capital development and perpetuates the gender pay gap.
3. Policy blind spots: Subsidies and scholarships exist, but social norms continue to undervalue daughters’ education.

Way Forward

Bridging the gender gap in educational expenditure requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses not just affordability but also deep-rooted social norms.

1. Strengthening targeted subsidies: Expansion of schemes like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao, free bicycles for girls, and conditional cash transfers for secondary and higher education can encourage families to invest equally in daughters.
2. Equalising access to quality education: Improving the quality of government schools and providing digital learning resources will reduce the need for costly private schooling and tuitions, thereby narrowing gendered disparities.
3. Awareness and behavioural change: Community-level campaigns must challenge patriarchal mindsets that undervalue girls’ education. Civil society and self-help groups can be leveraged to reshape family-level decision-making.
4. Transport and safety interventions: Ensuring safe and affordable transport for girls, particularly in higher secondary education, will address a key cost component that discourages investment.
5. Monitoring and accountability: Data from National Sample Survey and Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE+) should be used to regularly monitor gendered expenditure gaps and inform evidence-based policies.
6. Integrating ethics and social responsibility: Education policies must go hand in hand with fostering a sense of justice, fairness, and equal opportunity, so that families see daughters as equal bearers of human capital.

Conclusion

The NSS findings show that while India has moved forward in closing the gender gap in enrolment, it still struggles with a silent financial discrimination in household educational spending. Unless families start valuing daughters’ education equally, not just in words but also in investment, true gender equality in education will remain elusive. Corrective measures through policy nudges, financial incentives, and awareness campaigns are essential to bridge this invisible divide.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2022] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.

Linkage: The NSS 80th round shows families spend 18–30% more on boys than girls, privileging them in private schools and coaching despite RTE’s universal access. This proves that incentive-based provisions under the RTE Act remain inadequate without tackling deep-rooted gender norms. Hence, awareness generation, gender-responsive budgeting, and social mobilisation are essential complements to legal entitlements.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now