The research, conducted by Remy Pages and Gilbert Munyemana, draws on an ambitious 2023 mapping exercise commissioned by Rwanda’s National Child Development Agency and carried out by Esri Rwanda. Combining direct observation, geographic information system (GIS) classification, and self-reports from centre managers, the dataset covers 4,875 pre-primary settings serving 207,521 children aged three to five, spread across 91 administrative sectors in seven districts spanning all of Rwanda’s provinces. The authors merged this operational census with the country’s 2022 national census, which counted 13,246,394 residents, of whom 1,071,139—just over 8 percent—were children aged three to five.

Rwanda’s pre-primary landscape is unusual in that three very different kinds of provision coexist under a single national policy framework. Centre-based settings are formal institutions, typically urban, offering structured curricula delivered by trained caregivers. Community-based settings are improvised arrangements in which communal buildings or temporary structures are converted into learning spaces by local residents. Home-based settings—the most informal modality—are private households designated by neighboring families to host children’s early learning during the day, usually charging minimal or no fees. Under Rwanda’s regulatory system, sector-level officers receive monthly reports from caregivers and parents’ committees and are expected to conduct supervisory visits, though the intensity of oversight varies sharply by setting type, with centre-based providers facing the most consistent monitoring from Sector Education Officers and Social and Economic Development Officers.

The scale of Rwanda’s expansion in early childhood education makes the quality question urgent. The country has made enrollment a national priority consistent with Sustainable Development Goal 4.2, which affirms universal, high-quality pre-primary education as the right of every child. But as the new analysis makes clear, expanding access and ensuring quality are not the same thing—and the mechanism of expansion shapes what children actually experience.

What the Numbers Show

The descriptive picture is unambiguous. Among centre-based settings, 93 percent have handwashing stations, 80 percent have piped water, and 92 percent have safe waste disposal. Home-based settings report 68 percent, 23 percent, and 68 percent, respectively—the piped water gap alone corresponds to an effect size of d = 1.39, an enormous difference by social science standards. Proximity to public infrastructure follows the same pattern: 87 percent of centre-based settings sit within a two-kilometer walk of a health facility and 96 percent near a primary school, compared with 69 percent and 82 percent for home-based settings.

Human resources show even wider gaps. In centre-based settings, 45 percent of educators hold formal qualifications; in home-based settings, the figure is 10 percent (d = 1.07). Centre-based settings operate an average of 5.06 hours per day against 3.84 for home-based provision, and roughly five days per week compared with fewer than four. Community-based settings fall consistently between the two extremes, with staffing constraints resembling those of home-based care but somewhat better physical infrastructure.

Enrollment patterns mirror the geography of the divide. Centre-based settings account for 65 percent of total enrollment—135,634 children across 1,370 centres—while home-based settings serve 48,366 children (23 percent) across 2,824 homes, and community-based settings serve 23,521 children (11 percent) in 681 locations. In the capital’s districts, centre-based provision dominates: in Gasabo, home to Kigali’s urbanized core, up to 78 percent of enrolled children attend centres, and in sectors like Kinyinya, Nduba, and Gisozi, centre-based settings enroll 50 to 66 percent of the eligible child population. Some central sectors, such as Kimihurura, post enrollment rates exceeding 100 percent of their resident eligible population—a signal that urban centres draw children from surrounding areas. In the rural district of Nyamasheke, by contrast, home-based settings are the primary access point, with sectors such as Bushenge reporting home-based enrollment rates of 90 percent of eligible children, and Kagano, Kanjongo, and Karengera ranging from 33 to 45 percent.

A Multilevel Lens

What distinguishes the study methodologically is its attempt to separate two distinct sources of inequality. Because settings are clustered within Rwanda’s 91 administrative sectors, the authors used multilevel structural equation modeling to isolate within-sector differences between setting types from between-sector variation tied to sector-level socioeconomic conditions. Sector-level socioeconomic status was operationalized as the average years of completed schooling among residents aged twelve and older—a proxy strongly negatively correlated with the Multidimensional Poverty Index (Pearson’s r = –0.89). The authors handled the over-representation of Kigali’s 35 sectors with a binary indicator and reported cluster-robust standard errors throughout.

Infrastructure quality itself was modeled as three correlated latent factors derived from confirmatory factor analysis of binary and continuous indicators—a approach the authors argue is more robust than simple sum-score indexes because it accounts for shared variance among indicators and improves the precision of the effects of interest. The three factors captured basic physical facilities (handwashing stations, waste disposal, piped water), public infrastructure proximity (distance to health facilities, government offices, and primary schools), and staff quality and operational metrics (educator qualifications, daily hours, and weekly operating days). The measurement model fit the data well, with a comparative fit index of 0.955, an RMSEA of 0.06, and an SRMR of 0.05.

The results of the multilevel models are the study’s core contribution. Within sectors—holding local socioeconomic conditions constant—home-based settings scored 0.73 standard deviations below centre-based settings on physical facilities (95 percent confidence interval: –0.77 to –0.70) and 0.85 standard deviations lower on operational quality. Community-based settings showed similar structural constraints. Intraclass correlation coefficients reinforced how much of the action lies at the sector level: 51 percent of the variance in waste disposal access, 46 percent for proximity to government offices, and 42 percent for qualified educators resided between sectors rather than within them.

Yet a surprising nuance emerged when sector socioeconomic status entered the models. Between-sector disparities in infrastructure quality, which appeared substantial in the raw data, were no longer meaningful once the analysis adjusted for sector-level SES. In other words, the geographical clustering of poor infrastructure is largely explained by the socioeconomic composition of the sectors themselves rather than by geography per se. The poorest sectors—where average adult educational attainment is 4.99 years, compared with 6.21 years in sectors hosting centre-based provision—are precisely the sectors where home-based settings predominate and where structural quality is weakest.

The ‘Double Inequality’

The authors frame this pattern as an instance of what the international literature calls a “double inequality.” Socioeconomic status shapes not only which settings families can access but also the quality of those settings: higher-SES families cluster in better-resourced urban centres, while lower-SES families, facing constrained choices, prioritize affordability and proximity, landing in settings with minimal infrastructure, unqualified caregivers, and schedules dictated by household routines. Prior research also suggests that higher-SES families are better positioned to distinguish among care options and select environments conducive to development, amplifying the gap in children’s actual experiences.

The stakes are high. Decades of evidence from economics and developmental psychology show that high-quality early education improves school readiness and later outcomes, with the strongest benefits accruing to children in lower-resourced contexts—the very children most likely to be enrolled in Rwanda’s informal settings. The authors note that in low- and middle-income countries, structural inputs remain central to both access and quality, whereas in high-income countries, where universal baselines were achieved decades ago, structural features now show weaker associations with outcomes. Rwanda thus represents a system at an earlier stage of the same trajectory: three modalities under one policy roof, differing dramatically in resources and oversight.

The study also documents the fragile governance of the informal sector. Home-based caregivers are expected to report monthly to cell-level authorities, and parents’ committees oversee daily operations, sometimes in coordination with community health workers. But this supervision rests heavily on voluntary parent leadership and in-kind community contributions, raising questions about sustainability. Community-based settings, though formally embedded in the National Child Development Agency’s supervision cascade, are similarly constrained by their reliance on improvised facilities and unpredictable community mobilization.

The policy implications the authors draw are targeted rather than sweeping. Given that home-based and community-based settings are often the only viable early learning option in remote areas—and may deliver greater marginal value there than analogous settings in wealthier countries—the authors recommend prioritizing a minimum structural package for home-based settings: basic water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure, paired with educator training, sustainable financing mechanisms, and supportive oversight. Without such an intervention, the informal settings that made Rwanda’s enrollment expansion possible risk entrenching the very inequities the expansion was meant to erase.

For a country that has staked much of its development strategy on human capital formation, the message of the data is clear: the children furthest behind live not just in the poorest districts, but in the informal classrooms those districts can afford.

Pre-primary education, recognized worldwide as the cornerstone of lifelong learning, equips children with essential cognitive, social, and emotional skills that propel academic success and social integration. India, with its vast demographic diversity and complex socio-economic strata, presents a challenging context for ensuring equitable early childhood education. The study meticulously analyzes data across varied regions, illuminating how the likelihood of enrollment in pre-primary programs fluctuates dramatically between urban and rural settings and among different wealth quintiles, revealing systemic barriers impeding universal access.

The research critically highlights that children residing in urban centers enjoy considerably higher enrollment rates in pre-primary education compared to their rural counterparts. This urban-rural divide is exacerbated by infrastructural deficiencies, insufficient educational institutions, and service delivery gaps in rural areas. The geographical disparity underlines how educational access in India’s vast rural hinterlands remains out of reach for many children, perpetuating cycles of educational disadvantage from an early age.

Socioeconomic status emerges as a decisive factor in accessing pre-primary education. The study exposes that children from wealthier households are disproportionately more likely to be enrolled in quality early education settings than those from economically marginalized families. Economic constraints often prevent low-income families from affording fees or associated costs, even when public education services are ostensibly available. Such findings emphasize how financial barriers interplay with educational inequities, underscoring the socioeconomic stratification embedded in early childhood education access.

Another pivotal dimension examined in the study is the role of parental education and community awareness. Higher parental literacy rates correlate strongly with increased pre-primary enrollment, suggesting that educational attitudes within families significantly shape access patterns. Parental awareness of educational benefits and the importance of early childhood learning profoundly impacts decisions about early schooling, thereby creating a feedback loop that either fosters or inhibits educational participation among the youngest learners.

In addition to descriptive statistics, the study employs advanced econometric techniques to isolate the determinants driving enrollment disparities. By controlling for various household and regional characteristics, the researchers effectively identify causal pathways, offering invaluable insights for policymakers aiming to rectify imbalances. These sophisticated analytical methods elevate the study beyond mere observation, providing a data-driven roadmap for strategic interventions aimed at bridging the access gap.

The implications of these disparities extend far beyond mere enrollment figures. Early childhood educational experiences profoundly shape cognitive development trajectories and future academic achievement. The study warns that persistent inequities in access to pre-primary education risk entrenching intergenerational cycles of poverty and educational deprivation. This scenario presents an alarming challenge for India’s broader goals of inclusive growth and social equity.

Furthermore, the examination of pre-primary educational settings reveals that access is not uniform even within regions, with certain states outperforming others due to varying policy environments and resource allocations. The study’s granular regional analysis uncovers areas where targeted investments and policy reforms have yielded positive outcomes, offering replicable models for lagging regions. This nuanced understanding of regional heterogeneity is crucial for formulating effective localized educational strategies.

Equally significant is the government’s role in facilitating equitable access. The research critiques existing policy frameworks, highlighting gaps in implementation and suggesting that mere expansion of infrastructure is insufficient without concurrent efforts to reduce socio-economic barriers. Effective policymaking, the study recommends, must integrate financial support, community engagement, and public awareness campaigns to create an enabling environment for early childhood education access.

In presenting these findings, the authors call for a paradigm shift in India’s educational policy approach—one that prioritizes equity alongside expansion. They argue that addressing disparities in pre-primary education calls for multi-sectoral collaboration encompassing health, nutrition, social welfare, and education sectors. Such integrated approaches can holistically support early childhood development, thereby addressing the multifaceted challenges identified in the survey.

The study also underscores the potential of innovative delivery mechanisms, including community-based early childhood centers and public-private partnerships, to enhance reach and quality. Leveraging technology and flexible learning models could mitigate some accessibility issues peculiar to rural and underserved communities. These forward-looking propositions open new avenues for experimentation and scaling up effective early education models.

This investigation into India’s pre-primary educational landscape arrives at a critical juncture when global focus intensifies on achieving Sustainable Development Goals related to education. The data-driven evidence presented by Choudhury et al. not only highlights pervasive inequalities but also galvanizes stakeholders to intensify efforts toward universal early childhood education, recognizing it as a pivotal foundation for a more equitable society.

In reflecting on the broader global context, the study invites comparative analyses with other developing nations facing similar challenges, encouraging cross-national dialogues and knowledge exchange. What India reveals is emblematic of educational disparities widespread in many low- and middle-income countries, thus rendering this research globally relevant and actionable.

Ultimately, the study’s insights provide an urgent reminder that the promise of education as an equalizer remains elusive without deliberate and sustained commitment to addressing structural inequalities. Access to pre-primary education should transcend regional and economic boundaries, ensuring every child’s right to quality learning experiences from the very start of their educational journey.

As India grapples with its demographic dividend and aspires to an knowledge-driven economy, hospitals, schools, and governments must recognize the centrality of early childhood education access as a determinant of human capital development. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike must mobilize to dismantle the barriers illuminated in this seminal study, paving the way for an inclusive educational future.

This landmark research serves as a clarion call for concerted action, informed by rich empirical evidence, to transform India’s pre-primary educational system into an equitable platform that nurtures all children’s potential, irrespective of their socioeconomic background or geographic location. The stakes are high, and the opportunity profound—to redefine education access and build a foundation of fairness from the very beginning.

Subject of Research: Regional and socioeconomic inequalities in access to pre-primary education in India.

Article Title: Regional and socioeconomic inequalities in access to pre-primary education in India: evidence from a recent household survey.

Article References:
Choudhury, P.K., Joshi, R. & Kumar, A. Regional and socioeconomic inequalities in access to pre-primary education in India: evidence from a recent household survey. ICEP 17, 13 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00117-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-023-00117-4