| dc.description.abstract | This review paper draws on recent data to map the access and participation rates of girls
relative to boys. The paper makes the following broad points:
a) While female enrolment has increased rapidly since the 1990s, there is still a
substantial gap in upper primary and secondary schooling. Increased female
enrolment is, however, compromised by persistently high rates of drop-out and
poor attendance of girls relative to boys. Girls also constitute a large proportion of
out-of-school children.
b) Gender inequalities interlock with other forms of social inequality, notably caste,
ethnicity and religion, with girls from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Muslim minorities particularly, constituting the population of out-of-school and
drop-out children.
c) There are also considerable inter-state variations in gender parity. While the
greatest surges in female enrolment have been achieved in the most educationally
disadvantaged states such as Bihar and Rajasthan, these states still have a long
way to go to catch up with the better performing states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and
Himachal Pradesh.
d) The rapid increase in girls’ schooling can, arguably, be attributed to the policy
focus on alternative schools and transitional schooling forms such as bridge
schools and residential camps, which are meant to be temporary measures aimed
at integrating out-of-school girls into formal schools. Little is known about the
impact of participation in these schools, not just on girls’ learning and
empowerment, but also on the end result. It is unclear whether these girls go on to
complete formal schooling.
e) Some micro studies suggest that girls are over-represented in the public schools
and learning centres provided by government, demonstrating continuing ‘son’
preference whereby boys are educated in schools managed by non-state providers
which are of (perceived) better quality, and girls sent to public schools of
(perceived) relatively poor quality. However, these micro studies are not
conclusive, and in the absence of large data sets on the profile of students in the
non-state sector (notably private schools), it is hard to draw firm conclusions,
particularly as the non-state sector is also diversifying rapidly to include different
kinds of fee structures. This dimension would require further research and
investigation.
f) These trends suggest that though much has been done in policy terms to increase
female access to schooling, notably through improving access to primary
schooling by rapid expansion of schooling infrastructure, there are still major
policy challenges to be met in terms of improving the quality of schools and
ensuring better opportunities for girls at higher levels of education, notably upper
primary and secondary school. Dealing with demand-side constraints relating to
the schooling of adolescent girls, which has particular implications for
participation in upper primary and secondary schooling, is particularly critical.
The gender-sensitivity of the infrastructure of schooling – notably provision of
toilets, water and better security – is a particular dimension that requires attention.
viii
Improvements required in the quality of schooling, notably the content and
transaction of learning materials, implies a stronger focus on mainstreaming
gender in curriculum development and teacher-training aspects of policy making
in India that remain fairly opaque (the former) and ineffective (the latter).
Finally, the above factors point to a continuing failure of Indian educational interventions
to take serious stock of gender inequality in education. While DPEP was successful in
merging supply and demand side interventions, leading to a surge in female enrolment,
the lack of attention to gender-sensitive institutional reforms and quality education have
resulted in difficulties in sustaining these high levels of demand for female education.
Recognising that gender inequality in education cannot be delinked from wider issues of
women’s status and (in)ability to assert their needs and rights is a critical step that has
been made in the National Policy on Education (1986). However, sustaining this
viewpoint at all levels of administration, not just amongst senior bureaucrats, is essential
for change to trickle across and down to the school level. | en_US |
