From Primary to Higher Secondary: Tracking Gender Dynamics in Indian Educational Enrolment

1. Introduction

India’s educational landscape has significantly transformed since independence, particularly emphasizing universal education and gender parity. The Right to Education Act (2009) marked a crucial milestone in making education a fundamental right for children aged 6-14 years. Historical challenges in the Indian education system have been deeply rooted in social, economic, and cultural factors, with gender discrimination playing a significant role. Traditional societal norms, economic constraints, and infrastructure limitations have historically contributed to educational disparities across regions and between genders.

The implementation of various national programs like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao has aimed to address these challenges. These initiatives have mainly focused on increasing enrolment rates and reducing gender gaps in education. The socioeconomic diversity across Indian states has historically influenced educational outcomes. States with better economic indicators generally show higher enrolment rates, while traditionally disadvantaged regions continue to struggle with educational achievement. The rural-urban divide, infrastructural disparities, and varying state-level educational policies have created a complex mosaic of educational outcomes nationwide.

The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) represents the total enrolment at a specific educational level, regardless of age, as a percentage of the population in the official school-age group for that level of education during a given academic year. It measures the number of students enrolled at a particular level of education, irrespective of whether they fall within the official age range. A high GER typically reflects a significant level of participation in education, including students who may be younger or older than the standard age group associated with that level. The GER can exceed 100% due to the inclusion of over-aged and under-aged students, which may result from early or delayed school enrolment and grade repetition. To interpret GER accurately, it is essential to consider additional information that sheds light on the extent of grade repetition, late enrolment, and similar factors.

This research addresses several key objectives:

(1) To analyze the state-wise distribution of gender-disaggregated GERs across primary to higher secondary education levels in India.

(2) To assess the extent of gender disparities in GERs among Indian states and examine how these disparities manifest across different educational levels, considering the magnitude of disparity and insensitivity towards low overall enrollment ratio.

This study aims to advance our knowledge of gendered educational disparities, support evidence-based policymaking, and achieve broader social equity and sustainable development goals, particularly aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and Goal 5 (Gender Equality).

2. Data & Methodology

To conduct this descriptive research, we compiled data on GERs for the following educational levels: Primary (Grades 1 to 5), Upper Primary (Grades 6 to 8), Elementary (Grades 1 to 8), Secondary (Grades 9-10), and Higher Secondary (Grades 11-12) across Indian states and UTs from the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+) 2021-22 report published by the Ministry of Education, Government of India (UDISE+ is an extended version of the previous UDISE system). To analyze the Gender Gap, we first calculated the Directional Gender Gap (DGG) by subtracting the GER of boys from that of girls at different educational levels. It can be mathematically represented as:

DGG = GER_(Girls)​−GER_(Boys) 

This measure provides insights into both the magnitude of the gap and the direction of the disparity, indicating whether boys or girls are favoured. A positive value of the gender gap indicates higher enrolment rates among girls compared to boys, while a negative value suggests greater participation by boys.

Additionally, we calculated the Gender Parity Index (GPI), which is widely used as a socio-economic indicator to measure the ratio of female-to-male access to education, typically expressed as the ratio of Gross Enrollment Ratios (GER) between boys and girls. A GPI of 1 indicates perfect gender parity, while values below or above 1 indicate disparities favouring boys or girls. It can be mathematically represented as:

GPI = GER_(Girls)​/GER_(Boys)

While the Gender Parity Index (GPI) effectively identifies gender disparities in educational access and helps prevent overemphasis on one gender at the expense of the other, it has two major limitations. First, it is insensitive to low overall enrollment and Second, it ignores the magnitude of disparity. For instance, if the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) is 5 for both boys and girls, the GPI equals 1 (indicating parity) despite critically low enrollment. Similarly, a GER of 95 for both boys and girls also results in a GPI of 1, even though enrollment is high. Moreover, GPI shows only the ratio, not the absolute differences, which can misrepresent disparities. For example, GER values of 90 for girls and 45 for boys yield a GPI of 2 (favouring girls), as do GER values of 20 for girls and 10 for boys, although the latter scenario reflects a more severe enrollment issue for both genders. To address these limitations, a dual-reporting methodology was proposed, which involves creating scatter plots of GPIs versus Total GERs and GPIs versus DGGs, enabling the identification of critical regions with low enrollment or significant disparities. It ensures a clearer understanding of relative and absolute educational access disparities in a single window.

Here, GER_(Girls)​ is the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) for girls at a specific educational level, and GER_(Boys) is the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) for boys at the same educational level.​

3. Results

According to the Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+) 2021-22 Report, at the primary level (classes 1-5), the national GER was 103.4%, with girls (104.8%) slightly outperforming boys (102.1%). This ratio exceeding 100% suggests possible age-grade mismatches or repeated enrolments. Notably, northeastern states like Meghalaya (187.7%) and Mizoram (158.9%) showed remarkably high primary GERs, indicating strong educational participation but potentially also highlighting systemic inefficiencies or data collection challenges. Moving to upper primary education (classes 6-8), the GERs saw a noticeable decline, as the national average of GER at this education level dropped to 94.7%. This decline suggests challenges in retention and transition from primary to upper primary levels. However, some regions maintained strong performance. For instance, Delhi recorded an impressive 130% enrolment rate at this level. The gender gap remained minimal at this stage as girls’ enrolment was (94.9%) nearly equal to boys’ (94.5%), reflecting successful policies promoting girl-child education. The GER at the elementary education level (classes 1-8) showed a healthy national average of 100.1% but with significant state-level variations. Meghalaya led in this list with 155.7%, while states like Madhya Pradesh (88.7%) and Ladakh (74.3%) lagged behind. This disparity highlights the need for targeted interventions in underperforming states. Moreover, the gender analysis at this level showed that girls (101.1%) maintained slightly higher enrolment than boys (99.3%), indicating successful implementation of girl-child education initiatives.

Fig: 1

The national GER at the secondary level (classes 9-10) dropped substantially to 79.6%. This sharp decline from elementary levels points to severe challenges in educational continuity. However, Delhi maintained its strong performance with 111.2% enrolment, while states like Bihar (64.9%) and Ladakh (58.8%) showed concerning low rates. The gender gap began to widen at this level, though the national averages remained close, with boys at 79.7% and girls at 79.4%. The most dramatic decline observed at the higher secondary level (classes 11-12), where the national GER fell to 57.6%. This significant drop indicates serious systemic challenges in retaining students at the higher secondary education level. States like Himachal Pradesh and Delhi maintained relatively high rates (94.1% and 94.9%, respectively), while states like Bihar (35.9%) and Nagaland (35.8%) showed alarmingly low enrolment. Regional patterns emerged consistently across all levels. Northern states generally performed better, while the BIMARU states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh) consistently demonstrated lower enrolment rates, particularly in higher classes. Union Territories and metropolitan areas generally showed better retention rates than rural-dominated states. The northeastern states presented an exciting pattern of very high primary enrolment but sharp drops in higher classes, suggesting specific regional challenges in educational continuity (fig: 1).

Fig: 2

The state-wise directional gender gap in GER represents complex patterns of gender disparity in education across different states and educational levels in India. At the primary level (grades 1-5), the national average showed a positive gender gap of 2.7 %, indicating slightly higher enrolment of girls than boys. While States like Chandigarh (9.3 %), Delhi (7.7 %), and Meghalaya (7.4 %) showed substantially higher enrolment of girls, Sikkim (-6.7 %), Kerala (-0.7 %), and Punjab (-1.0 %) showed higher enrolment of boys. The gender gap at the upper primary level (grades 6-8) presented a different picture, with the national average narrowing to 0.4 %. Meghalaya stood out with a remarkable gender gap of 16.3 % in favour of girls, while Lakshadweep showed the opposite trend with -12.6 %, indicating significantly higher boy’s enrolment. Other states like Chandigarh (11.3 %) and Assam (9.3 %) maintained positive gender gaps, while states like Andhra Pradesh (-4.8 %) and Rajasthan (-4.0 %) showed notable gaps favouring boys. At the elementary level (grades 1-8), which combines primary and upper primary, the national average stood at 1.8 %. Meghalaya (10.8 %) and Chandigarh (10.0 %) continued to lead in terms of girl’s enrolment ratio, while Lakshadweep (-4.3 %) and Sikkim (-3.3 %) showed the opposite trend. This level generally showed more moderate gaps than primary and upper primary levels, suggesting some balancing effect when considering the entire elementary education span.

The secondary level (grades 9-10) of education in India revealed more pronounced disparities, with the national average slightly negative at -0.3 %. Some states like Meghalaya (18.3 %), Assam (13.4 %), and West Bengal (9.8 %) showed dramatic gaps in favour of girls, while Rajasthan (-6.6 %), Uttar Pradesh (-5.8 %), and Gujarat (-4.4 %) showed substantially higher boy’s enrolment. This suggests that gender disparities become more pronounced as students progress to higher education levels. The higher secondary level (grades 11-12) showed the most striking disparities. While the national average was positive at 1.2%, there were stark differences observed across the different states. Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu showed the highest gender gap of 26.1 in favour of girls, followed by West Bengal (16.9 %) and Sikkim (15.4 %). Conversely, Rajasthan (-7.7 %), Lakshadweep (-4.9 %), and Uttar Pradesh (-4.5 %) showed significant gaps favouring boys. This level appears to amplify existing regional patterns of gender disparity.

Moreover, several important trends emerged from this data. First, northeastern states generally showed higher girl’s enrolment ratios across all types of education levels, with Meghalaya emerging as a consistent leader. Second, some economically advanced states displayed varying patterns – while Delhi maintained positive gender gaps across levels, Maharashtra showed fluctuating patterns. Third, surprisingly positive gender gaps were found in some historically underprivileged states, such as Bihar, suggesting successful interventions in promoting girls’ education (fig: 2).

Fig: 3

At the extremes of the spectrum, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu showed the highest GPI of 1.583 at the higher secondary level, indicating a substantial tilt toward female enrollment. This starkly contrasts with Lakshadweep’s upper primary GPI of 0.820, representing the lowest value and signifying a significant skew toward male enrollment. These extreme values help us understand the wide disparities that exist across various educational levels and different regions of India. The progression of GPI across educational levels revealed an interesting pattern in many states. For instance, Kerala, despite its reputation for educational excellence, showed a unique pattern where the GPI increases from 0.993 at the primary level to 1.080 at the higher secondary level, suggesting that gender parity actually improves as students advance to higher grades. Similarly, West Bengal demonstrated a progressive improvement in GPI from 1.010 at primary to 1.314 at higher secondary, indicating increasingly favourable conditions for female education at higher levels.

The relationship between urbanization and GPI presents some counterintuitive findings. While one might expect more urbanized states to show better gender parity, the data sometimes presents a different picture altogether. For example, despite being highly urbanized, Delhi showed fluctuating GPI values across different education levels, from 1.068 at primary to 1.091 at higher secondary. In contrast, some predominantly rural states like Meghalaya showed consistently high GPI values, reaching 1.337 at the higher secondary level, challenging conventional assumptions about the relationship between urbanization and gender parity in education (fig: 3).

Fig: 4

At the primary level (grades 1-5), the national data showed a Gender Gap in GER of 2.7% with a GPI of 1.026, while the Total GER stood at 103.4%. This indicates that slightly more girls than boys were enrolled in primary education, with overall enrollment exceeding 100% due to factors like age variations and grade repetition. The positive correlation between Gender Gap and GPI demonstrates that states with higher gender gaps typically had higher GPI values. Moving to upper primary education (grades 6-8), the Gender Gap narrowed to 0.4% nationally with a GPI of 1.004, while the total GER decreased to 94.7%. This trend suggests that while gender parity has been nearly achieved at this level, overall enrollment rates have dropped compared to primary education. The relationship between Gender Gap and GPI remains positive but becomes less pronounced at this level. In secondary education (grades 9-10), an interesting shift occurred where the national Gender Gap became slightly negative at -0.3% with a GPI of 0.996, and the total GER further declined to 79.6%. This represents the first level where boys’ enrollment marginally exceeded girls’ enrollment. The correlation between the Gender Gap and GPI has remained consistently positive, meaning states with higher gender gaps in favour of girls continued to show higher GPI values. For higher secondary education (grades 11-12), the Gender Gap returned to positive territory at 1.2% with a GPI of 1.021, even though the total GER dropped significantly to 57.6%. This level has demonstrated the most varied patterns across states, with some showing substantial gender gaps in both directions. The relationship between Gender Gap and GPI has become more pronounced at this level, with states showing larger variations in both metrics.

States like Meghalaya and Chandigarh consistently maintained high positive gender gaps and GPIs across all levels, while states like Rajasthan and Gujarat showed more mixed patterns. The correlation between Total GER and GPI remained consistently lower across different Indian states and educational levels, suggesting that higher overall enrollment rates don’t necessarily correspond to better gender parity. In the northeastern states, a fascinating pattern emerged. Meghalaya demonstrated remarkable progress in gender parity, showing consistently high positive gender gaps across all education levels, with the most pronounced gap of 18.3% at the secondary level and a GPI of 1.240. This trend has also continued into higher secondary education, with a 13.3% gap and a GPI of 1.337. Assam also showed strong performance in gender parity, particularly at the secondary level, with a 13.4% gender gap and a GPI of 1.197, although its total GER of 74.5% suggests room for improvement in overall enrollment. The southern states presented an intriguing contrast. Kerala, often considered educationally advanced, actually showed slightly negative gender gaps at the primary (-0.7%) and upper primary (-0.5%) levels, but interestingly shifts to a positive gap of 6.6% at the higher secondary level with a GPI of 1.080. Tamil Nadu maintained relatively balanced gender parity across levels, with minor fluctuations, while showing robust Total GER figures, particularly at the secondary level (95.6%). In the northern region, Chandigarh stood out with consistently high positive gender gaps across all levels, reaching 13.3% at the higher secondary level with a GPI of 1.174. However, its neighbouring state, Haryana, presented a different picture. It showed modest gender gaps and even negative gaps at the secondary level (-2.8%) despite maintaining relatively high Total GER figures. The western states showed some concerning trends. Rajasthan exhibited negative gender gaps at both secondary (-6.6%) and higher secondary (-7.7%) levels, with corresponding GPIs of 0.919 and 0.895, respectively, indicating persistent challenges in girls’ enrollment at higher education levels. While performing better at primary levels, Gujarat showed negative gaps at secondary levels, suggesting similar challenges.

Union Territories presented unique patterns. Ladakh showed remarkably high positive gender gaps, particularly at the higher secondary level with a GPI of 1.234, while maintaining relatively lower Total GER figures. Conversely, Lakshadweep demonstrated negative gender gaps at upper primary (-12.6%) and higher levels, with corresponding low GPIs, indicating significant challenges in maintaining gender parity. Among larger states, Uttar Pradesh presented a complex picture. While showing positive gender gaps at elementary levels (3.4%), it shifted to negative gaps at secondary (-5.8%) and higher secondary (-4.5%) levels, with corresponding GPIs below 1, suggesting challenges in retaining girls in higher education. Maharashtra, despite its economic advancement, showed negative gender gaps at secondary and higher secondary levels, though with less severity than some other states. West Bengal emerged as a positive example, showing increasing gender gaps in favour of girls as education levels progress, culminating in a 16.9% gap at the higher secondary level with a GPI of 1.314 while maintaining reasonable Total GER figures (fig: 4).

These patterns reveal that geographical location, socio-economic conditions, and cultural factors are crucial in determining educational gender parity. States with historically better social indicators don’t necessarily show better gender parity, suggesting that targeted interventions focusing specifically on gender equality in education might be more effective than general educational development programs. Throughout all educational levels, there has been a clear pattern where the Total GER gradually decreases as students progress to higher levels. At the same time, the relationship between the Gender Gap and GPI has remained relatively stable. This suggests that while access to education has become more challenging at higher levels for all students, the gender dynamics have maintained similar patterns across levels, though with varying intensities.

4. Policy Implications

There are several emerging issues that require immediate attention and long-term strategic planning, such as Transition Support Mechanisms, Regional Equity Enhancement, Gender-Specific Interventions, Infrastructure Development, Quality Enhancement Initiatives, Socio-Economic Support Systems, Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and Community Engagement. 

The sharp decline in enrolment rates from elementary to secondary and higher secondary levels necessitates targeted policy interventions. Recommendations include establishing robust tracking systems to identify potential dropouts, creating bridge programs for smooth transitions between educational levels, and implementing early warning systems to identify students at risk of dropping out. Financial support mechanisms, such as targeted scholarships and conditional cash transfers, should be strengthened during these critical transition phases.

High-performing states like Delhi and Himachal Pradesh can serve as model cases for policy replication. Specific recommendations include developing state-specific action plans, establishing inter-state knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and creating regional educational hubs to support underperforming areas. Particular attention should be given to BIMARU states through increased resource allocation and capacity-building initiatives.

While celebrating the success in achieving gender parity at lower levels, policies must address the continuing challenges at higher levels. Recommended interventions include establishing more girls’ schools in underserved areas, providing targeted financial support for female students in higher secondary education, and Implementing comprehensive safety and security measures. Career counselling programs designed explicitly for female students could help address social and cultural barriers to continued education.

The administration should focus on improving educational infrastructure, particularly in regions with lower enrolment rates. This includes constructing more secondary and higher secondary schools in rural areas, upgrading existing facilities, and ensuring basic amenities like separate toilets for girls. Technology integration and digital infrastructure development should be prioritized to bridge the urban-rural divide.

Beyond enrolment, improving education quality is also essential. Recommendations include strengthening teacher training programs, implementing standardized quality assessment mechanisms, and developing state-specific curriculum enhancements that reflect local contexts while maintaining national standards. Comprehensive support systems should be designed to address socio-economic barriers to education. This includes expanding mid-day meal programs to higher classes, providing transportation support in rural areas, and developing vocational education integration at secondary levels to enhance employability prospects.

A robust monitoring and evaluation system should be implemented to track progress and identify areas requiring intervention. This includes developing real-time data collection systems, establishing regular review mechanisms, and creating feedback loops for policy refinement. To strengthen community involvement in education, establishing parent-teacher associations, creating community monitoring mechanisms, and developing local support systems for educational institutions can be beneficial. Last but not the least, targeted policies should be designed for particular focus areas, including Northeastern states requiring support in maintaining high enrolment through higher classes, Urban slums needing specialized educational interventions, Remote and tribal areas requiring customized educational delivery mechanisms, and Areas affected by migration requiring flexible educational systems.

5. References