TL;DR of NSS 2025
- The National Sample Survey’s Comprehensive Modular Survey on Education (CMS:E, part of the NSS 80th round, Apr–Jun 2025) shows persistent gender gaps in household spending on school education: households on average spend more on boys than on girls across rural and urban India.
- Example figures (national summary reported in the press coverage): Rural: Boys ₹9,033 vs Girls ₹7,660; Urban: Boys ₹24,788 vs Girls ₹21,997; Rural+Urban: Boys ₹13,470 vs Girls ₹11,666.
- Biggest driver of household spending: course fees (avg. ₹7,111 per student) and private coaching (urban avg. coaching ₹3,988; rural ₹1,793). Government schools involve much lower household spending (avg. ₹2,863 per student) vs non-government schools (avg. ₹25,002).
Why this NSS/CMS:E 2025 survey matters
The CMS:E (80th NSS round) collected detailed, nationally representative household data on school-education expenditures from over 52,000 households and ~57,742 students, making it one of the most comprehensive recent snapshots of what Indian families actually spend on schooling and coaching. The report separates schooling costs from private coaching and breaks down spending by item, school type, level and geography — enabling precise gender comparisons.
Key Findings
1. Households spend more on boys than girls (national averages)
- Rural: Average per-student household expenditure — Boys ₹9,033, Girls ₹7,660.
- Urban: Average per-student household expenditure — Boys ₹24,788, Girls ₹21,997.
- Combined (Rural+Urban): Boys ₹13,470 vs Girls ₹11,666.
These numbers indicate a consistent gendered spending gap, even as enrolment gaps shrink.
2. Course fees dominate spending
Course fees are the largest single item (avg. ₹7,111 per student), followed by textbooks/stationery (₹2,002). Urban households pay much higher course fees than rural. This matters because differential access to fee-heavy private schools or coaching can widen gendered spending gaps.
3. Private coaching amplifies costs — and the gap
Nearly 27% of students took private coaching (higher in urban areas: 30.7%). Average annual household spending on private coaching: Urban ₹3,988, Rural ₹1,793 — rising steeply with education level (higher secondary coaching nationally averages ₹6,384). Coaching is a major additional expense that often tracks with household investment decisions.
4. Government schools keep household spending low — but access differs
Government schools account for about 55.9% of total enrolments (66% in rural areas vs 30.1% urban). Households with children in government schools reported much lower per-student spending (avg. ₹2,863) compared with ₹25,002 in non-government schools — showing how school type shapes household outlays.
Where the gender gap shows up
- Spending gaps exist across course fees, textbooks, uniforms, transport and private coaching — boys receive higher household spending on many of these items. The differential widens at higher secondary levels. In urban areas the data show especially large absolute gaps.
Possible Drivers behind the Spending Gap
- Persistent social norms and perceived returns: Families may perceive higher economic returns to investing in sons (job prospects, migration) and therefore spend more on boys. (Supported by long literature — e.g., academic work on household educational spending and gender.)
- School-type choices: Boys are more represented in private unaided schools (which cost more), while girls are often concentrated in government schools where household outlays are lower. The CMS shows major differences in per-student household spending by school type.
- Coaching dependence: Households prioritizing expensive coaching for perceived exam success may favor boys for limited household budgets. Coaching costs are substantial and concentrated in urban and higher-secondary cohorts.
- Household bargaining & opportunity costs: When families face constrained budgets, differential intra-household allocation (caring responsibilities, early marriage risks) may lower investments in girls. (Explained in prior NSS research and academic studies.)
Policy & Program Implications (What Should Change)
- Targeted scholarship & stipend design: Scholarships for higher secondary and coaching support aimed at girls could close both participation and spending gaps. (Small conditional stipends tied to attendance or coaching access can be effective.)
- Scale up quality public schooling: Strengthening government schools’ quality will reduce household dependence on private schools & coaching (the CMS shows huge per-student spending gaps by school type).
- Subsidized coaching for girls in competitive streams: Public or NGO-run supplementary coaching programs for girls (especially in higher secondary and exam classes) to level the exam-prep playing field.
- Behavioral & awareness campaigns: Community-level campaigns that highlight the long-term returns of girls’ education — tied to local role-modeling and parental engagement — can gradually shift investment patterns. (Supported by broader social research.)
What NGOs can do — Practical Actions
- Data-driven targeting: Use CMS:E state-level tables to identify districts where girls’ per-student spending lags most and prioritize scholarships there. (CMS:E is available on MoSPI; sample sizes vary — interpret subnational estimates carefully.)
- Bridge funds for coaching & materials: Provide bursaries for private coaching or run high-quality after-school coaching for girls preparing for higher-secondary and entrance exams. CMS:E highlights coaching as a big expense that often determines outcomes.
- Partnerships with public schools: Support government school improvements (digital resources, remedial teachers) to reduce private-school pressure. The CMS:E shows government schools keep outlays low — raising their quality is key.
- Parental engagement & livelihood linkages: Combine educational support with livelihood interventions for parents so households can afford to invest more equitably. (Research indicates household economics influence spending choices.)
Limitations & Caveats
- The CMS:E press note cautions that state/sub-national estimates should be interpreted with care due to sample sizes and Relative Standard Error (RSE). The survey’s objective was national estimates; some local estimates may have higher uncertainty. Use the microdata or state tables with statistical caution.
- Expenditure does not map perfectly to outcomes — higher spending can reflect higher prices (urban/private contexts) rather than better learning. Complement spending data with learning/outcome indicators (UDISE+, ASER, NFHS, etc.).
NSS 2025 Data
| Area | Boys (avg ₹ per student) | Girls (avg ₹ per student) |
|---|---|---|
| Rural | 9,033 | 7,660 |
| Urban | 24,788 | 21,997 |
| Rural + Urban | 13,470 | 11,666 |
Source: NSS
FAQs
Q: What dataset produced these figures?
A: The figures come from the Comprehensive Modular Survey: Education (CMS:E), run as part of the NSS 80th round (April–June 2025) by the National Statistics Office / MoSPI. The press note and detailed tables were published by MoSPI (Aug 26, 2025).
Q: Does CMS:E separate school costs and coaching costs?
A: Yes. CMS:E deliberately separates school education spending and private coaching spending; it reports coaching participation and average coaching expenditures separately.
Q: Are the gender gaps the same across states?
A: No — the magnitude varies by state and urban/rural location. MoSPI warns that subnational estimates have varying sample sizes and RSEs, so interpret state/district numbers carefully and consult the full tables for local planning.
What We Do.
At GirlsFirst Foundation, we use data to drive targeted programs. The NSS/CMS:E 2025 makes it clear: closing the gender spending gap requires both financial support (scholarships, coaching bursaries) and systemic change (stronger public schools, community awareness). If you’re a donor, educator or policymaker, partner with GirlsFirst Foundation to scale coaching, mentorship and scholarship interventions that help girls stay and succeed in school. Visit: https://girlsfirstfoundation.com/