Keeping a girl in school is not just a moral imperative—it’s one of the highest-return investments India can make. When girls complete secondary education, their lifetime earnings rise, child marriage and early pregnancy fall, and the next generation learns more and earns more. Conversely, each dropout represents a compounding economic and social loss.
What does it actually cost to keep a girl in school?
1) Direct household expenses (fees, uniforms, books, transport)
Government schools remain low-cost, but families still pay for uniforms, books, exam fees, and transport. The National Statistical Office’s latest full education cost snapshot (NSS 75th round, 2017–18) shows average annual out-of-pocket spending per student in general (non-professional) education of about ₹5,240 in rural and ₹16,308 in urban India, with costs climbing by level and much higher in private schools. These are the most recent official disaggregated benchmarks for household spending on education.
Indicatively, urban households spending for primary/upper-primary can exceed ₹13–15k per child per year (2017–18 base), and transport/uniforms make up a sizable share—costs that are typically higher for rural families on items like uniforms and stationery. Even if absolute rupee values have risen since then, the cost structure still looks similar today.
2) Public programs that offset family costs
Well-implemented school inputs (free textbooks, uniforms, midday meals) reduce dropouts and improve attendance, particularly for girls. Recent state rollouts—like free uniforms/textbooks and early distribution before term—underscore how small costs often tip attendance decisions for low-income families. School feeding and conditional support (scholarships, bicycles, sanitary pads) are especially effective for girls.
3) The opportunity cost lens
When older girls stay in school, families forgo potential income from paid work or household labor. Economists capture this trade-off using returns to education: globally, each additional year of schooling yields about 9–10% higher private earnings on average, and returns are typically higher for women (≈ +12% per year in many settings). This is a powerful way to see schooling as an investment with annualized payoffs.
The cost of dropping out (micro to macro)
1) Lifetime earnings loss
Because each year of schooling boosts wages, leaving school early permanently suppresses a girl’s lifetime income. At a 9–12% private return per additional year, dropping out 2–3 years before secondary completion can translate to 20–40% lower earnings across a working life—compounded if it also leads to early marriage and reduced labor force participation. (Estimates reflect global return ranges; Indian studies broadly align with sizeable, positive returns.)
2) Early marriage, early motherhood, and health costs
In India, nearly 1 in 4 young women (23%) were married before 18 (NFHS-5/UNICEF). Dropping out increases the risk of child marriage, which in turn reduces education continuity and economic prospects, and raises maternal and neonatal health risks—costs borne by families and the health system.
International evidence shows that keeping girls in secondary school is one of the most effective child-marriage reduction strategies; conversely, not educating girls imposes large economic losses. A World Bank synthesis estimates $15–$30 trillion in lost productivity globally from barriers to girls completing 12 years of education.
3) Intergenerational learning and poverty traps
Mothers’ education is strongly linked to children’s survival, nutrition, and schooling. When girls drop out, the next generation’s learning-adjusted years of schooling (LAYS) and human capital also fall—fueling intergenerational poverty. (See World Bank gender and human-capital indicators for country comparisons.)
4) School leadership & learning quality
Even when access is high, weak school leadership and administrative overload limit gains in learning—especially in schools serving first-generation learners. The latest UNESCO GEM 2024–25 theme on Leadership in Education highlights that principals (including in India-like contexts) spend ~68% of time on administration rather than instructional leadership, dampening teacher support and learning outcomes. Girls suffer disproportionately from low-quality schooling because families reassess “value for money” when learning appears low.
Where India stands right now
- Access is up, but learning poverty is high. Despite near-universal enrolment, an estimated ~73% of Indian children under 10 struggle to read a simple text, signalling that quality—not just access—drives long-run payoffs to schooling. (This statistic is repeatedly cited in coverage of the GEM findings for India.)
- Girls’ retention improves with targeted supports. India’s experience echoes global best practice: scholarships, school feeding, safe transport, separate toilets, and menstrual hygiene supports raise attendance and delay marriage. Bangladesh’s stipend experience is a widely cited regional success for girls’ enrolment and retention—useful for India’s program design.
- Leadership & gender representation gaps persist. Women comprise a large share of teachers but are under-represented as principals and in higher-education leadership—an efficiency loss, because female leadership correlates with safer, more inclusive school environments for girls. The GEM report flags this as a bottleneck for system-level improvement.
What it takes to keep a girl in school (and why it pays)
- Lower (or eliminate) small but decisive costs
Ensure on-time delivery of textbooks, uniforms, and predictable transport/hostel support. These “last-mile” frictions are often what push families toward dropout at transition grades (Class 6, 9, 11). - Protect time-in-school with incentives
School feeding and conditional scholarships tied to attendance/learning are cost-effective and scale well—especially for adolescent girls. - Strengthen learning quality (the real ROI driver)
Invest in remedial FLN (foundational literacy & numeracy), teacher coaching, and instructional leadership so families see value in continued schooling—crucial when weighing teen girls’ time against household labor or low-wage work. - Delay marriage via schooling pathways
Secondary school completion is among the strongest protectors against child marriage; dedicated girls’ stipends and safety measures (secure hostels, bicycles, lighting/toilets) materially reduce dropout. The global macro losses from not educating girls underscore why these investments pay for themselves.
A simple economics take-away
- Keep her in school: Households pay recurring out-of-pocket costs, but the annual return per year of schooling (≈9–12%) compounds across a lifetime—in rupees, this typically dwarfs fees + uniforms + transport within a few working years.
- If she drops out: Expect 20–40% lower lifetime earnings (for a 2–3-year shortfall), higher risk of early marriage and adverse health outcomes, and weaker learning for the next generation—costs borne by families, communities, and the economy.