The review, led by Raj Kumar and Jahangeer Ahmad Dar of Chandigarh University together with Sarika Sharma of Jamia Millia Islamia, frames gender inequality in education as a multifactorial and context-dependent phenomenon rather than a single problem with a single remedy. The authors conceptualise access, enrolment and retention as sequential but distinct dimensions of educational participation, with retention being especially sensitive to socio-cultural and infrastructural influences. This framing matters because it explains why policies that succeed in getting girls through the school gate often fail to keep them there through the critical adolescent years.

Methodologically, the study followed a PRISMA-style selection process. The researchers began with 249 records—170 identified through structured searches of the SciSpace database using Boolean combinations of terms such as gender inequality, Right to Education, girls’ education, enrolment, retention and India, and 79 more uncovered through backward and forward citation chaining. After screening titles, abstracts and full texts, 50 studies were included in the final synthesis, spanning quantitative analyses of nationally representative datasets, qualitative case studies and mixed-methods research concentrated in states such as Bihar, West Bengal, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The authors acknowledge that they did not apply formal risk-of-bias tools, relying instead on a light-touch appraisal of methodological rigour, data sources and clarity of findings.

The magnitude of the gender gap emerges as one of the review’s starkest findings. Sixteen of the included studies documented high levels of disparity in enrolment and retention, with inequities growing larger as girls progress through the education cycle. The transition to secondary and upper-secondary schooling acts as a critical loss point, driven by gendered expectations of household labour and care work, the persistent practice of early marriage, and parental attitudes that prioritise boys’ education. Longitudinal evidence cited in the review shows that even when girls remain enrolled, domestic responsibilities—captured in one study’s memorable finding that girls ‘can’t escape from washing dishes’ regardless of what they study—erode their ability to complete school on par with boys.

Geography compounds the problem. Twelve studies found pronounced spatial heterogeneity in Right to Education outcomes, with rural areas in northern and eastern states—Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and others—showing significantly higher gender gaps in access, attendance and completion than other regions. The review notes that these inequalities are further exaggerated among tribal and other marginalised groups, where socio-cultural norms, infrastructural deficits and systemic exclusion interact to constrain girls’ educational pathways. Crucially, several studies reported that gendered discrimination persists even after controlling for socioeconomic disadvantage, suggesting that normative biases run deep and cannot be explained away by poverty alone.

Socioeconomic status stands out as a powerful predictor of girls’ schooling. Fourteen studies identified household income, parental education—especially maternal education—and caste stratification as key determinants of enrolment, retention and grade-level transitions. One study of aggregated community effects in rural India found that maternal illiteracy and household poverty significantly increase dropout risk, while communities with higher concentrations of female literacy show better continuation rates for girls. This points to an intergenerational mechanism: mothers who stayed in school raise daughters who are more likely to do the same, meaning that today’s dropout crisis seeds tomorrow’s.

Against this bleak backdrop, the review documents genuine success stories. Ten studies found positive effects of targeted interventions, including bicycle distribution programmes, conditional cash transfers, scholarships and other government-funded support. The most celebrated of these is the bicycle scheme studied by economists Karthik Muralidharan and Nishith Prakash, which substantially increased secondary school enrolment among girls in Bihar by overcoming the mobility barrier between home and distant secondary schools. West Bengal’s Kanyashree Prakalpa, a conditional cash transfer scheme, has been shown to keep girls in school longer and delay marriage, while the national Beti Bachao Beti Padhao campaign represents a broader attempt to shift social attitudes. Community-based and multi-level strategies that actively involve teachers, families and local governance structures also show promise when implemented consistently.

Yet the review is careful to temper optimism. Several studies warned that while incentive-based programmes have produced measurable gains in enrolment, their impact on learning outcomes and regular attendance is comparatively small, and their long-term effectiveness remains equivocal. A multi-faceted education programme evaluated in India improved enrolment and equity but contributed little to learning or school management quality. The authors conclude that cash transfers and bicycles are not standalone solutions: their usefulness depends on implementation quality, socio-cultural acceptance and complementary support systems. Infrastructure improvements such as separate toilets and safe transport are associated with better attendance, but their effects are often mediated by social norms and household decision-making, meaning supply-side investments must be paired with demand-side and socio-cultural change.

Policy implementation fidelity emerges as a recurring weakness. Nine studies linked persistent disparities to inadequate infrastructure, shortages of qualified teachers and significant socio-cultural resistance, with awareness-building and community mobilisation—the supposed pillars of rights-based implementation—remaining uneven and underutilised, especially in rural and marginalised settings. The review argues for intersectionality-informed targeting that prioritises the most disadvantaged sub-groups, such as girls from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in low-income rural households, rather than treating girls as a homogeneous category. It also calls for stronger local governance, monitoring and accountability frameworks, and for policies that look beyond access to learning quality, socio-emotional development and empowerment.

The authors are candid about the limitations of the evidence base. Much of the literature is geographically concentrated in high-burden states such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, which may not represent India’s full diversity, and there is a striking gap in data on girls’ education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Study designs vary widely in scale and rigour, so the review’s findings should be read as broad patterns rather than definitive national estimates. Still, the overall message is clear: India has made real progress in getting girls into primary classrooms, and well-designed, context-specific interventions have demonstrably delayed marriage and raised participation in some regions. But closing the remaining gender gap will require multi-level, integrated strategies—combining economic support, gender-sensitive infrastructure, community engagement, institutional reform and sustained attention to what happens inside schools—tailored to the specific social and administrative conditions of each region rather than imposed as one-size-fits-all national programmes.

Subject of Research: Gender inequalities in the enforcement of the Right to Education in India, focusing on girls' access, enrolment and retention

Article Title: Gender inequalities in right to education in India: a review of access, enrolment, retention and intervention effectiveness

Article References: Kumar, R., Dar, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2026). Gender inequalities in right to education in India: a review of access, enrolment, retention and intervention effectiveness. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02130-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02130-4

Keywords: gender inequality, Right to Education, girls' education, India, enrolment, retention, conditional cash transfers, bicycle schemes, rural disparities, education policy, socio-cultural barriers, intersectionality