Girls’ Education: Reaching Out-of-School Girls in India

Education has long been recognised as both a fundamental human right and one of the most powerful instruments of social and economic transformation. International commitments, from the Education for All movement through the Millennium Development Goals to the current Sustainable Development Goal 4, have placed universal access to quality education at the centre of the global development agenda. Yet the persistence of large numbers of out-of-school children, and particularly the continued exclusion of adolescent girls from secondary education, reveals the limits of progress achieved to date.

According to UNESCO estimates, 56 million children of primary school age remain out of school globally. While primary-level gender parity has been achieved in a majority of countries, significant attrition occurs as girls move into secondary and higher secondary education. In India, the Gender Parity Index has remained consistently above 1.0 at the elementary stage for more than a decade, signalling that girls’ enrolment now matches or exceeds that of boys in the early years of schooling. Nevertheless, the Gross Enrolment Ratio for girls declines markedly at higher levels, leaving nearly four out of ten adolescent girls outside formal higher secondary education in 2024–25 (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–79, 170–187).

This article offers a comprehensive examination of the out-of-school girls crisis. It begins by reviewing the global and regional scale of exclusion and the specific trends observable in India. It then critically assesses the measurement frameworks and methodological challenges that shape available estimates, with particular attention to the Five Dimensions of Exclusion model and the persistent discrepancies between administrative and household survey data. Subsequent sections map the regions and social groups at highest risk, analyze the multidimensional barriers that drive dropout across demand-side, supply-side and systemic dimensions, and document the educational, health, economic and intergenerational consequences of exclusion. The article further evaluates the substantial developmental returns to public investment in girls’ schooling and synthesises evidence on the most effective interventions and the respective roles of governments, international organisations, communities, and schools. It concludes by identifying persistent research, policy and implementation gaps and outlining a coherent forward-looking agenda for achieving equitable secondary completion.

The central argument advanced throughout is that primary parity, while a significant achievement, remains an unfinished foundation. Converting access gains into universal secondary completion requires simultaneous attention to measurement quality, structural reform of school networks, gender-responsive infrastructure and financing, proactive identification of at-risk girls, and sustained shifts in social norms. No single intervention is sufficient; durable progress depends on coherent, multi-level action sustained over time.

2. Global and Regional Scale of the Out-of-School Crisis

The global stock of out-of-school children remains unacceptably high. UNESCO estimates place the number of primary-age children out of school at 56 million. When lower and upper secondary ages are included, the total rises substantially, with recent global monitoring indicating that hundreds of millions of children, adolescents and youth remain excluded from the full cycle of basic education. Progress in reducing the out-of-school rate has slowed markedly since 2015, and in some regions absolute numbers have increased because of demographic growth and the disruptive effects of conflict, climate shocks, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Regional disparities are stark. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to account for the largest share of the global out-of-school population. Central Asia records the highest proportion of primary-school-age children who are expected never to enter formal education, at 51 percent, a figure second only to Sub-Saharan Africa (UNICEF & UNESCO Institute for Statistics [UIS], 2012, pp. 11–35). Within the Commonwealth of Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe region, more than 317,000 primary-age children and 315,000 adolescents of compulsory school age remain out of school. Sub-national concentrations of prolonged absenteeism and non-enrolment have been documented in areas such as East Kazakhstan, Karaganda, South Kazakhstan, and Almaty Province (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 50–57).

These patterns reflect a combination of limited secondary school provision, economic vulnerability, residual effects of institutional transition, and, in some contexts, the lingering consequences of conflict. The persistence of never-entry rates above 50 percent in parts of Central Asia indicates that the challenge extends beyond preventing dropout to ensuring that children cross the threshold of formal schooling in the first place.

In India, the picture is more differentiated and, in some respects, more encouraging at the elementary level, yet still marked by substantial absolute numbers and sharp attrition at higher stages. Estimates of the out-of-school population have varied widely across data sources because of differences in methodology, definitions, and population denominators. The Census of India 2011 estimated 38.1 million children aged 6–13 years (18.3 percent) as out of school. The National Sample Survey Office 71st Round (2014) produced a considerably lower figure of 19.04 million (9.4 percent). Administrative data from the Unified District Information System for Education for 2014–15 estimated between 16.04 million and 17.64 million children (7.88–8.61 percent), depending on whether United Nations Population Division or Ministry of Human Resource Development population projections were applied (CORD, De, & Mehra, 2016, pp. 1–32). These discrepancies illustrate the sensitivity of national estimates to definitional and demographic choices and underscore the need for greater harmonisation of measurement approaches.

3. Key Trends in Girls’ Education in India

India has made substantial and widely recognised progress in consolidating gender parity at the elementary stage. Between 2014–15 and 2024–25 the Gender Parity Index remained above 1.0 across all states, indicating that girls’ enrolment has matched or exceeded that of boys at both primary and upper primary levels (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–79). This achievement reflects the cumulative impact of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, large-scale programmes under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and later Samagra Shiksha, the expansion of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and targeted initiatives such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas.

Gross Enrolment Ratios for girls in 2024–25 stood at 92.3 percent at the primary stage and 92.5 percent at the upper primary stage. The primary figure represents a downward correction from the inflated 107.38 percent recorded in 2014–15, reflecting improved data quality, the elimination of double-counting and more accurate demographic adjustments rather than an actual decline in participation (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–79). At the secondary stage, however, the GER falls to 80.2 percent, and at the higher secondary stage it declines sharply to 60.9 percent. Consequently, nearly four out of ten adolescent girls remain outside formal higher secondary education (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–187).

Multiple interrelated factors contribute to this pattern of attrition. Socio-economic and cultural pressures, including early marriage, teenage pregnancy, household responsibilities, unpaid care work and parental preference for investing in boys’ education in low-income households, remain significant drivers of withdrawal. Infrastructural gaps also play a critical role. Although the proportion of schools with functional girls’ toilets increased from 85.17 percent in 2014–15 to 94 percent in 2024–25, nearly 98,592 schools still lack functional girls’ toilets and 61,540 schools lack any usable toilets (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–187). Inadequate gender-sensitive sanitation continues to trigger absenteeism and permanent dropout, particularly after the onset of menstruation.

The digital gender divide further compounds disadvantage. While 88.1 percent of girls aged 14–16 live in households with a smartphone, only 26.9 percent of girls, compared with 36.2 percent of boys, personally own a device. Girls also report lower digital safety skills, such as making profiles private (50.2 percent versus 60.3 percent for boys) or changing passwords (50.1 percent versus 65.4 percent for boys) (Pratham Education Foundation, 2024, pp. 15–16, 78–79). These gaps limit girls’ access to online learning resources and expose them to greater online risks, while also restricting their ability to benefit from technology-enabled supplementary education.

4. Measurement Frameworks and Methodological Challenges

Accurate monitoring of educational exclusion requires a standardised conceptual framework capable of capturing both non-entrants and those who enter but later leave. The Five Dimensions of Exclusion model, developed under the Global Initiative on Out-of-School Children jointly launched by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, has become the most widely adopted tool for this purpose. The model distinguishes five dimensions: Dimension 1 covers children of pre-primary age not attending pre-primary or primary school; Dimension 2 covers children of primary school age not attending primary or secondary school; Dimension 3 covers children of lower secondary school age not attending primary or secondary school; Dimension 4 covers primary school students who are enrolled but at high risk of dropping out; and Dimension 5 covers lower secondary school students who are enrolled but at high risk of dropping out (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 11–35; UNICEF & UIS, 2016, pp. 1–25).

This framework represents a significant advance over earlier binary approaches that simply distinguished “in school” from “out of school.” By incorporating the concept of risk among currently enrolled students, it directs attention to prevention as well as remediation. Nevertheless, substantial methodological challenges continue to complicate the production of reliable estimates.

Administrative data systems such as U-DISE measure enrolment ratios on the basis of school registers. These systems are susceptible to over-age and under-age inflation, double-counting of students who appear in more than one register, delayed removal of chronically absent children, and reporting biases linked to teacher postings or funding incentives. Household surveys, including the Census, National Sample Survey Office rounds and specialised studies, measure actual attendance through parental interviews and therefore capture a different construct. They are subject to respondent bias, reliance on unverified self-reported ages, sampling frames that under-represent migrant and transient households, and the use of perceived rather than standardised definitions of attendance (CORD, De, & Mehra, 2016, pp. 10–58).

Definitional variations generate further discrepancies. Under strict International Standard Classification of Education standards, primary-age children attending pre-primary classes are classified as out of school. When such children are reclassified as “in-school” in the Indian context, the NSSO 2014 estimate for Dimension 2 falls from 13.65 million to 9.56 million (CORD, De, & Mehra, 2016, pp. 1–32). Differences in age reference dates relative to the start of the academic year, unadjusted self-reported ages, and the choice of population projections (United Nations Population Division versus Registrar General of India or Ministry of Human Resource Development estimates) produce additional variance across reports.

These methodological inconsistencies have practical consequences. They complicate the monitoring of progress toward national and global targets, obscure the true scale of exclusion among the most marginalised groups, and weaken the evidence base for targeted policy design. Strengthening the linkage between school-level administrative data and periodic household surveys, while systematically applying the Five Dimensions of Exclusion framework and adopting common age-adjustment protocols, remains an urgent priority.

5. Regions, Countries and Social Groups at Highest Risk

Exclusion is not randomly distributed. At the global level, Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia continue to account for disproportionate shares of both never-entry and primary-level exclusion. Within India, secondary and higher secondary female Gross Enrolment Ratios reveal clear geographic clustering of risk. At the secondary stage the lowest ratios are found in Bihar (54.8 percent), Uttar Pradesh (64.3 percent), Nagaland (67.2 percent), Jammu and Kashmir (67.5 percent) and Madhya Pradesh (68.2 percent). At the higher secondary stage the most severe exclusion is observed in Bihar (40.4 percent), Nagaland (43.4 percent), Arunachal Pradesh (45.8 percent), Meghalaya (46.5 percent), Jammu and Kashmir (46.6 percent), Madhya Pradesh (46.9 percent), Assam (47.4 percent) and Gujarat (49.7 percent) (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 116–120, 170–195).

Social identity interacts with geography to produce compounded disadvantage. Girls from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities face elevated dropout rates during the transition from upper primary to secondary education, reflecting the cumulative effects of historical poverty, lower parental literacy and social discrimination. Learning outcome assessments further indicate that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students score significantly lower in foundational and middle-stage competencies than their general-category peers (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195). Girls belonging to religious minorities, particularly in Minority Concentration Districts, experience persistent deficits linked to lower rural female literacy, inadequate secondary school coverage and economic marginalisation.

Girls with physical, sensory or learning disabilities encounter severe systemic barriers. Only 33.4 percent of schools possess functional toilets accessible to children with special needs, and many lack barrier-free classrooms, tactile pathways or specialised learning materials. Inaccessible facilities, combined with social stigma, disproportionately discourage attendance among adolescent girls with disabilities (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195). Children of seasonal agricultural workers, internal construction migrants, street children and urban poor households experience high rates of non-enrolment and prolonged unexcused absenteeism, exacerbated by the absence of interstate curriculum portability and weak student tracking systems. Finally, rural adolescent girls confronting early marriage norms, long distances to secondary schools and safety concerns on the journey to school face heightened risk during the upper primary and secondary transitions (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 50–57).

6. Multidimensional Barriers to Girls’ Schooling

The barriers that keep girls out of school or push them out after enrolment operate across three interconnected domains: demand-side and socio-economic pressures, supply-side and school-level conditions, and deeper systemic and policy bottlenecks.

On the demand side, household economic calculations are decisive. In low-income and agrarian families the opportunity cost of educating adolescent girls is high. Girls are frequently required to perform domestic chores, care for younger siblings or contribute to household income. Labour force estimates indicate that 31 percent of out-of-school adolescents aged 14–17 enter the workforce, while 25 percent report household duties as the primary reason for non-attendance (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195; Pratham Education Foundation, 2024, pp. 15–16). Secondary education further elevates financial barriers. Although elementary schooling is largely free of tuition, secondary education generates substantial out-of-pocket costs for textbooks, uniforms, transport, examination fees and private tuition—often three to five times higher than at the primary stage (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 109–165). When households face economic shocks, girls are frequently the first to be withdrawn.

Patriarchal attitudes reinforce these economic pressures. Deep-seated social norms that assign lower economic returns to daughters’ education, combined with concerns about early marriage and family honour, contribute to withdrawal as girls reach adolescence (Singh, 2023, pp. 1–15). These norms intersect with caste, tribe and minority status to produce cumulative disadvantage, visible in the sharp decline of the Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Tribe students from 98.8 percent at the primary level to 51.9 percent at the higher secondary level (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195).

Supply-side barriers centre on the physical, pedagogical and social environment of schools. Inadequate sanitation and menstrual hygiene infrastructure remain major drivers of absenteeism and dropout. The absence of clean water, private changing spaces and safe disposal facilities directly contributes to menstruation-related non-attendance. Distance, transport and safety concerns further constrain participation. Secondary schools are considerably less widely distributed than primary schools, and long travel distances, irregular transport and fear of harassment lead many parents to discontinue girls’ education after Grade 8 (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 11–35). The scarcity of female teachers in rural and remote areas reduces both perceived safety and the availability of positive role models, while inaccessible infrastructure silently excludes girls with disabilities.

Systemic bottlenecks amplify these pressures. India’s schooling network retains a steeply pyramidal structure, narrowing from approximately 7.3 lakh primary schools to 4.34 lakh upper primary and only 1.42 lakh secondary schools. Fewer than 5 percent of schools offer continuous K–12 education, forcing students to change institutions after Grades 5, 8 and 10 and creating multiple transition points at which dropout risk is elevated (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–71, 109–165). Legal coverage under the Right to Education Act extends only to age 14, leaving secondary education without equivalent statutory financial protection. Policy planning has often treated age cohorts as uniform populations, under-weighting gender-specific constraints, while health conditions such as anaemia, which affects 59.1 percent of adolescent girls, impair both attendance and cognitive engagement (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195).

7. Consequences of Exclusion

The consequences of excluding girls from formal schooling unfold across multiple domains and time horizons. In the short term, exclusion prevents the acquisition of foundational literacy and numeracy, creates an immediate cognitive deficit, and blocks progression into secondary, higher secondary and vocational pathways. Girls withdrawn from school are rapidly diverted into unpaid domestic labour or informal work, experiencing an erosion of self-confidence, personal agency, negotiation skills and peer socialisation (Singh, 2023, pp. 1–15).

Longer-term health consequences are severe. Schooling provides a critical platform for nutritional support, menstrual hygiene awareness and health education. Exclusion exacerbates vulnerabilities such as anaemia and contributes to poorer reproductive health knowledge. Longitudinal evidence links female illiteracy and school exclusion to higher rates of child malnutrition, adverse sex ratios and elevated infant and maternal mortality (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 238–255). Education also expands girls’ capacity to protect themselves against physical, psychological and sexual violence; its absence leaves them with fewer protective resources.

Economically, exclusion constitutes a form of entitlement failure that restricts women’s earning potential, locks them out of formal employment, and leaves them dependent on male family members and highly vulnerable to household shocks. Socially, it reinforces patriarchal patterns of dependence and excludes women from household and community decision-making (Singh, 2023, pp. 1–15).

Perhaps most consequential are the intergenerational effects. Educated mothers serve as positive role models, raise the probability that their own children will enrol and complete school, and transmit values of justice, equality and civic responsibility. Children of uneducated mothers face significantly higher risks of stunting, chronic malnutrition and early childhood mortality, thereby perpetuating cycles of disadvantage across generations (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 238–255; UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 50–57).

8. Returns to Investing in Girls’ Education

The developmental returns to girls’ education are among the most robustly documented findings in the economics of education and development. At the macroeconomic level, each additional year of average schooling is associated with approximately 0.37 percent higher GDP growth (World Bank, 2025, pp. 6, 84). Higher female literacy and foundational learning correlate with increased per-capita income, enhanced labour force productivity and greater macroeconomic resilience. In developing economies the returns to female education frequently exceed those to male education, particularly when schooling extends at least to the secondary level, because the marginal gains from bringing previously excluded girls into productive activity are especially large (Singh, 2023, pp. 1–15).

At the household level, formal education raises women’s earning capacity, diversifies household income, improves resilience against economic shocks and helps narrow gender wage differentials. Public investment in girls’ education converts a substantial volume of unpaid care and domestic labour into recognised economic contribution and expands social mobility for historically marginalised communities (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 116–120, 170–195).

Health and demographic returns are equally significant. Higher educational attainment among girls is associated with lower rates of child stunting and malnutrition, reduced infant and maternal mortality, improved health knowledge and more balanced sex ratios. Prolonging girls’ participation in formal schooling delays age at marriage, reduces fertility rates and moderates population growth (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020, pp. 40–42). Education also enhances adolescent girls’ self-confidence and social agency, strengthening their capacity to protect themselves against violence and chronic ill-health.

Social and intergenerational returns complete the picture. Educated mothers raise the educational aspirations and attainment of the next generation and transmit civic values that strengthen social cohesion. At the broadest level, investing in girls’ education functions as a high-leverage strategy that advances multiple Sustainable Development Goals simultaneously and supports national visions of inclusive development and skilled human capital formation (World Bank, 2025, pp. 6, 290; NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 107, 116–120).

9. Evidence-Based Interventions and Scalable Solutions

Evidence from national programmes, state-level initiatives and international models points to six clusters of intervention with demonstrated effectiveness.

Targeted financial incentives and attendance-linked direct benefit transfers reduce household cost barriers and create positive incentives for continued participation. Gujarat’s Namo Lakshmi Yojana, which provides cumulative support of up to ₹50,000 across Classes 9–12 conditional on 80 percent attendance, has produced early increases of 16 percent in girls’ secondary enrolment and 27 percent in science-stream participation (Department of Education, Government of Gujarat, 2024, pp. 1–5). Similar secondary stipend models, inspired by Bangladesh’s long-standing programme, have delayed marriage, moderated fertility and raised completion rates (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 117–135).

Safety-linked mobility support and gender-segregated WASH infrastructure address critical physical barriers. Free bicycles or transport vouchers at key transition grades, functional girls’ toilets with menstrual hygiene facilities, and boundary walls have all been associated with improved retention (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195). Residential facilities such as Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas and Eklavya Model Residential Schools provide protective environments for girls from the most disadvantaged communities and remote areas, enabling completion through Grade 12 (Ministry of Education, 2020, pp. 40–42).

Early warning systems that flag prolonged unexcused absence, combined with flexible open schooling and accelerated bridge courses, enable both prevention and re-entry (UNICEF & UIS, 2016, pp. 1–25). Female teacher recruitment and gender-sensitisation training improve classroom climate and provide role models (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–71). Sustained community mobilisation through campaigns such as Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and empowered School Management Committees shifts social norms and strengthens local accountability (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195).

Scalable state experiences further illustrate the value of level-based remedial pedagogy (Uttar Pradesh’s Graded Learning Programme, which advanced 17 lakh children in Grades 4–5 to Grade 1 reading levels within three months), school rationalisation into composite institutions (Rajasthan), hub-and-spoke resource sharing (Nagaland’s Lighthouse School Complexes), and multi-sectoral health tracking linked to attendance (Rajasthan’s Shala Swasthya Parikshan) (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 13–15, 223–272).

10. Multi-Stakeholder Responsibilities

Sustainable progress depends on coherent action across four stakeholder groups. Governments must strengthen statutory mandates, expand targeted financing through instruments such as the Gender Inclusion Fund, mandate gender-responsive infrastructure, and institutionalise cross-sector student tracking and early warning systems (Ministry of Education, 2020, pp. 40–42; NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 313–345). International organisations supply standardised measurement frameworks, methodological research that helps reconcile data discrepancies, and catalytic funding for gender equity programmes (UNICEF & UIS, 2012, pp. 11–35; UNICEF & UIS, 2016, pp. 1–25). Communities, through School Management Committees, self-help groups and civil society organisations, drive norm change, exercise local oversight and support re-entry pathways (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195). Schools must institutionalise inclusive pedagogy, daily attendance monitoring with rapid home follow-up, and enabling health and safety conditions (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2023, pp. 40–45, 110–118).

11. Persistent Gaps and Future Agenda

Despite the richness of available evidence, critical gaps remain. Research continues to be hampered by data contradictions, under-coverage of mobile and invisible populations, superficial classification of dropout causes, and limited evidence on digital autonomy among adolescent girls (CORD, De, & Mehra, 2016, pp. 10–58; Pratham Education Foundation, 2024, pp. 15–16). Policy gaps centre on pyramidal structural fragmentation, incomplete legal coverage beyond elementary education, and insufficiently gender-responsive budgeting and planning (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–71, 109–165). Implementation gaps include weak School Management Committees, continuing infrastructure deficits, and pedagogy still oriented toward textbook coverage rather than competency-based progression (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 170–195).

A coherent future agenda requires methodological studies that harmonise administrative and survey data, longitudinal intersectional research on the combined effects of gender, caste, disability, climate shocks and migration, and rigorous evaluation of socio-emotional learning and digital interventions. On the operational side, priorities include reorganising school networks into composite complexes that minimise transition points, institutionalising digital early warning systems, establishing permanent cross-departmental task forces, and empowering community institutions with direct grants and gender-sensitivity training (NITI Aayog, 2026, pp. 14–71, 170–195; UNICEF & UIS, 2016, pp. 1–25).

The achievements of the past two decades in expanding girls’ access to elementary education are real and consequential. Gender parity at the primary and upper primary stages represents a historic shift in many societies, including India. Yet these gains remain incomplete. Nearly four in ten adolescent girls in India still stand outside higher secondary education, and similar patterns of secondary attrition characterise large parts of the developing world. Exclusion is produced by the interaction of household economic pressures, socio-cultural norms, school-level infrastructure and safety deficits, and systemic design features that multiply transition points and leave secondary education under-protected.

The evidence reviewed in this article demonstrates that effective responses must operate simultaneously on measurement quality, demand-side costs, supply-side conditions and institutional architecture. Targeted financial incentives, gender-responsive infrastructure, protective residential options, proactive early warning systems, level-based pedagogy, school rationalisation, and sustained community mobilisation constitute a coherent package of high-impact interventions. These measures are most effective when embedded within a multi-stakeholder framework that aligns governmental authority, international technical support, community accountability and school-level practice.

Converting the access gains of the past generation into universal secondary completion for all girls is both a moral imperative and one of the highest-yield investments available to national and global development agendas. The costs of continued exclusion—measured in lost learning, poorer health, constrained economic agency and intergenerational disadvantage—are simply too high. With sustained political commitment, adequate resources, rigorous measurement and coordinated action across all levels of the education ecosystem, the unfinished agenda of educational equity can still be completed.

References

• Collaborative Research and Dissemination (CORD), De, A., & Mehra, C. S. (2016). Estimating the number of out-of-school children: Methodological problems and alternative approaches—India case study (Technical Paper, pp. 1–58). UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

• Department of Education, Government of Gujarat. (2024). Namo Lakshmi Yojana scheme (pp. 1–5). Government of Gujarat.

• Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National education policy 2020 (pp. 40–42). Government of India.

• Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2020). National education policy 2020 (pp. 40–42, 60–62). Government of India.

• National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2023). National curriculum framework for school education (NCF-SE 2023) (pp. 40–45, 110–118, 240–250). Ministry of Education, Government of India.

• NITI Aayog. (2026). School education system in India: A temporal analysis and policy roadmap for quality enhancement (pp. 13–79, 109–195, 223–272, 313–345). Education Division, NITI Aayog, Government of India.

• Pratham Education Foundation. (2024). Annual status of education report (ASER 2024): Beyond basics (pp. 15–16, 78–79). Pratham Education Foundation.

• Singh, G. (2023). Elementary education for girls in India: Status and social attitudes (pp. 1–15). Department of Education.

• UNICEF, & UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). Identification and monitoring of out-of-school children and dropping out of students (pp. 8–57, 117–135, 175–210). UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS.

• UNICEF, & UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2016). Monitoring education participation: Framework for monitoring children and adolescents who are out-of-school or at risk of dropping out (Operational Manual, pp. 1–25). UNICEF & UNESCO-UIS.

• World Bank. (2025). Accelerating investment: Challenges and policies (pp. 6, 84, 115, 290, 310). World Bank Group.

@ 2025 Chaifry. All rights reserved.