22 A Bird’s Eye View: Education and Girl Child in India with special reference to elementary education

Sumati Unkule

In April 2016, in a popular Marathi newspaper named Sakal, was a photo of a small girl, not more than seven years was sitting at the doors of a classroom and was keenly listening to what was happening inside. She was in uniform attending classes just like the other students in her class. This is not to conclude that she was punished. The fact was, she who needed to be looked after, had a younger sibling in her lap. She, like million other girls in India, took care of younger sibling in the family and at the same time was trying to attend school.‘Payvaat’, a short film which won 2016 National Award is also telling. It’s a film about a small girl in rural India and how she makes to the school every day. The girl wakes up, sweeps, cleans, cooks, take care of her grandmother, feeds her small brother, feed cattle, fetches water, prepares her brother for school, feeds her grandmother, then eats something, bathes, study and then proceeds to school which itself is a long walk.

This photo and the film precisely describe the context of girls education in India today – both in rural and urban areas.

When India became independent in 1947 female literacy was only 8.6%. Firmly believing that education is a panacea for women’s development and empowerment, efforts were directed toward girls’ education and education at large. These efforts definitely improved women’s overall status. However, even after seven decades education of girls faces myriad challenges like lack of school readiness, less enrolment of girl child, high dropout rate, class, caste, regional disparities, inadequate educational facilities, patriarchal mindset of the society, quality issues, academic achievements and many others. There are increasing studies that brings forth finer nuances of the relationship between gender and education and demonstrates that attention also needs to be paid on factors ‘inside’ the school like curriculum design and textbooks.

Education being one of the most important social institutions affects men and women differently. Rather, aspects of education like school readiness, access to education, retention, academic achievements, higher education and many other aspects of education depends for girls, on the social location of family, caste, class, region, and religion. Also, education does not have same causes and consequences for girls and boys.

This module seeks to understand the complex relationship between the social institution of education and women. This module discusses how gender (social construction of men and women) remains a significant factor in every aspect of girls’ education. It also, discusses the brief history of girl’s education in India. It further argues that if India has to improve status of women, has to empower them and educate them in true sense, attention must be given to how gender affects every aspect of education. Lastly, this module will discuss how the changing context of globalization has effects on girls’ education.

Let us begin by understanding the concept of social institution and education as a social institution.

1. Education as a Social Institution

In sociology, an institution is a system of organizing social relationships which embodies certain common values and procedures and meets certain basic needs of the society. They are the structured processes through which people carry on their activities (Horton and Hunt, 2004). Sumner (1906) defines institution as something which consists of a concept (idea, notion, doctrine or interest) and a structure.

Institutions have emerged as products of people living together. Earlier when people started living in groups, they developed certain patterns in their day to day life to meet their daily needs. Slowly these patterns received social sanctions. Eventually, rules were established and these rules were codified into laws. These practices continue to develop and change; at the same time institutions impose constraints on individuals.

Education is one of the significant institutions in today’s society. The word ‘education’ has come from the word ‘leisure’ and it referred to people who had ‘leisure’ to learn. Modern education, often considered as a product of industrialization and modernization changed the character of education from elite prerogative to that of masses. Education is one of the important instruments of socialization through which norms and values of a society are instilled in the minds of people.

2. Sociology of Education in India: Literature Review

Sociology of Education is the study of educational structures, processes, and practices from a sociological perspective. This means that the theories, methods, and the appropriate sociological questions are used to better understand the relationship between educational institutions and society, both at the micro and macro levels. The field has got a peculiar character because of its dual existence in both sociology and education. This dual existence is one source of tension between those who see the sociology of education as a pure science and those who see it as an applied field of study (Saha, 2008). Many scholars have argued that sociology of education has remained marginalized and had to struggle for prestige and recognition in their countries (Saha, 2008; Chanana, 2006; Hansen, 1967). After studying sociology and social philosophy 35 years, Young, (2002) has argued that Sociology of Education is triply marginalized; first, separated from the day to day concerns of much of social life, second, marginalized within faculties of education, and education research institutes, its principal institutional locations, and third, the study of education is itself marginalized within the academy at large. In India, Sociology of Education emerged sometime around 1964 with the establishment of Education Commission, thus the field emerged primarily from policy imperatives rather than from within the parent discipline (Nambissan, 2013; Chitnis, 1982) and remains as a softer and marginalized discipline in sociology at large (Chanana, 2006, 2002; Ruhela 1969). Reflecting on her experience of 45 years in sociology of education, Suma Chitnis (2013) states the failure to research on going realities in education and to enrich sociological concepts with insights from experience is a major shortcoming of the discipline.

3.   Sociology of Education and its Engagement with Gender Issues

Major themes of sociology of education in India has been examining caste, class inequalities in educational achievement, problems of minorities, SCs and STs, education and state, education and social change, social mobility, and educational organization and social system. Studies in education were classified under ‘women’s education’ theme for first time in the Fourth Research of Survey in Education (1988) by the NCERT. Since then this has been one of the significant themes in sociology of education. Nambissan (2014) in her review of research in Sociology of School Education in India states that ‘there has been significant work in India on the education of the girl child, her socialization into patriarchal or ‘patrifocal’ ideology, and norms and values that influence her education and life chances’.

Rege (2004) argues that feminist scholars have underlined the ways in which the educational system has taught the girls ‘to lose’ through the gendered curriculum. According to her, for feminist sociology the issue therefore is not limited to measuring educational achievements but to draw out issues of ‘hidden curriculum’, of stereotypes and role models and to every day interaction in the educational system. Feminist educators see the curriculum and teaching methodologies as sights of struggle and as potential areas for change.

Chanana (2008) in her study on Hindu female education and sexuality argues that ‘it is not possible to view women’s education without reference to their social context, which is rooted in culture, religion and in the patrifocal family structure and ideology’. Protection of female sexuality of women remains a crucial factor that influences their access and their journey through school. She observes that schools reproduce primary socialization, especially gender socialization in the family. She argues that ‘women remains passive actors in the process of schooling do not question the patrifocal ideology and do not transgress the social boundaries and work within the accepted system of values’ (Chanana 2008).

Many studies demonstrate that sisters and brothers in same families do not receive same education (Seymour, 2002). At many instances, it is seen that girls are educated and sent to college only to ensure that they get better grooms and can become better mothers, thus ensuring social status and mobility. In her study ‘Sisters and Brothers: Schooling, Family and Migration’ of one peasant family in Punjab village, Chopra, Radhika (2005) underscores that the schooling of the daughter was perceived as a means to secure the future emigration of the younger son through the former’s marriage into the diaspora.

Gautam Meenakshi (2015) in her exploratory study of women students at a University in Delhi showed that while choosing subjects father and gender played an important role. Also, priority was given to the institution, to its location and to the availability of an attached hostel, rather than to the subject or discipline. Donner (2006) in her article ‘Committed Mothers and Well-Adjusted Children: Privatization, Early-years Education and Motherhood in Calcutta’ explores new definitions of good mothering among middle-class families in Calcutta. In her ethnographic study, she argues that pre-school education has reshaped women’s lives as daughters-in- law and mothers of successful future white-collar workers. Like Drury (1993), she too notes that in Calcutta women’s education is seen as a precondition for marriage and motherhood as both these institutions need new set of parenting skills.

Bassi (2003) in her study ‘Gender in Schools; Observations from an exploratory study’ studies primary section of a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Delhi, explores ‘gender relations within the school in terms of organizational practices inside and outside the classroom, teacher attitudes, and expectations’ (Bassi 2003). According to her “gender code” and “hidden curriculum” remains ingrained in the minds of girls and prevent girls from crossing gender boundaries. She concludes that ‘gender differentiation is very much a part of the everyday schooling experience of children from early years of education’ (Bassi 2003). However, Nambissan (2014) argues that in spite of increasing studies in the area of gender and education, the contextualization of gender relations within Indian classrooms is still a neglected area of research. Thus, schools remains largely influenced by the gender norms prevalent in that particular society.

Many studies demonstrates that education do not give equal educational opportunities to people of marginalised communities. Rather, Velaskar, Padma (1998) argues that the emancipatory role of education in bringing about freedom, equality, and social justice can perhaps be virtually dismissed. She points out that despite the negative nature of some changes, educational development in the contest of Dalits has some positive effects and it is this education that has enabled them to wrest power in social, cultural and political domain of life and erode some of the ‘hegemonic belief system’. In her study, ‘Caste, Gender and Education: Dalit Girl’s Access to Schooling in Maharashtra’ (2007) examines to what extent the Dalit women have been able to go beyond the barriers of caste, class and gender in schools. She observes that there has been increase in overall access to schooling for the Dalit girls at all levels. However, she states that there is a sharp gender disparity in retention particularly at the secondary level.

Paik, Shailaja (2009) in her study ‘Chhadi lage chham chham, vidya yeyi gham gham (The harder the stick beats, the faster the flow of knowledge): Dalit Women’s Struggle for Education’ focuses on experiences of dalit girls within schools. She argues that power relationships in the wider society have a strong bearing on both access to education and the quality of the education that Dalit girls receive. Her study demonstrates that the Dalit students are made to sit separately in the classrooms and separate registers were maintained. Also, the girls reported that the teachers had a negative image and low expectations from them and the treatment in schools was humiliating. According to Chanana (2002) studying the relation between gender and education requires interdisciplinary orientation. Both occupy the margins of sociology as an academic discipline. Both are softer options within the social sciences and both are the chosen first options of women as students and for employment.

All these studies demonstrate that feminist scholarships have underscored gender inequalities in educational achievement and gendered character of the educational system. However, scholars who have worked in the area of gender, caste and community do recognize that schools offer spaces that are less gender biased than the confines of family and community, and hence provide an opportunity (limited albeit) for girls to develop social relationships, a sense of confidence, and to achieve in non-traditional spheres (Nambissan, 2014).

4. Theoretical Framework

Till recently, structural functionalism has remained the dominant perspective in sociology of education. Functionalist analyses view of education tends to focus on the positive contributions made by education to the maintenance of the social system. They believe that the aim of education is to socialize. Although this aim is stated in formal curriculum, it is mainly achieved through ‘the hidden curriculum’ a subtler, but powerful, indoctrination of the norms and values of the wider society. Durkheim perceived education as a means of maintaining social solidarity, Parsons conceives education as instrument to instill universalistic values, and Davis and Moore understand education as a means of role allocation. In India, until the mid- 1980s, research by sociologists in education was largely informed by a liberal perspective within which equality of educational opportunity was a major concern (Nambissan, 2013).

Marxist perspective explains how the educational system is shaped by the economic infrastructure. According to this perspective, the educational system works as an instrument to produce the workforce required by the capitalists. The study by Gintis and Bowels (1976), Paul Willis (1977) are some of the studies carried out in education using Marxist perspective. In Indian context Jayram (1976) and Kamat (1985) have studied education from Marxist perspective. However, studies that used macro-theoretical perspectives of functionalism and Marxism neglected learning context in the schools.

The New Sociology of Education emerged in the United Kingdom in the 1970s as a critique of structural functional paradigm and the neglect of the study of schooling. Based on the theoretical perspectives of symbolic interactionism and phenomenology, it draws attention to school realities as socially constructed, and forcefully highlighted the importance of interrogating school knowledge and the ‘taken- for-granted’ problems of educators (Karabel and Halsey 1977). Peter Woods, David Hargreaves, and Basil Bernstein are some of the key representatives of the New Sociology of Education.

5. Brief History of Women’s Education in India

Plausibly there had been matriarchy during the pre-Vedic period but when there was a shift from matriarchy to patriarchy, right to knowledge was gradually denied to women. Further the gradual consolidation of patriarchy restricted women to the domestic sphere and education became privilege of upper caste males. Education had highly religious character and it never had a mass character. It is often argued that in Vedic period women had access to education and it was a ‘golden age’ of India. Women scholars like Gargi and Maitreyee are put forth to illustrate the golden age. Yagyavalkya, who was defeated in philosophical discussion with Gargi, warns her: “You either shut your mouth or I will cut it off from your body” and thus muted Gargi. Thus, Gargi and Maitreyee were exceptions and exceptions itself proves the rule!

With the East India Company consolidating its power, they had refused to take on itself the responsibility of education of the people of India. They did not want to interfere in the socio-religious life of the Indians so that they could consolidate their power without any opposition. With the advent of British, Indian men were increasingly exposed to English education and modern ideas. Social reformers in India like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, Veerasalinglam Pantalu, Maharshi Karve, started pressing for social reforms for women and gradually doors were opened for women’s education. However, intend was largely to train women in their own household responsibilities as ‘ideal wives’ and ‘ideal mothers’ which remains same till large extent even today.

Initially there was strong opposition to women’s education and debates over women’s education took place. The debates were largely on what type of education was suitable for women. Social reformers like Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, Dayanand Saraswati, Lokmanya Tilak and others pressed for education which would help women to be good householders and good mothers who would create next generation for the nation. Thus, they wanted education of women to uphold their patriarchal and traditional roles. However, Mahatma Phule was of the opinion that men and women need to be given equal education and stressed that one should make women fully developed and confident individuals. He considered education to be an instrument of emancipation for all the suppressed and exploited (Jadhav, 2009). Thus, there were certain efforts in the area of women’s education and when India became free in 1951, 8.6% females were literate.

In post independence period, recognizing education as the only panacea for social development, efforts were directed in that direction. Fundamental rights, directive principles and the Concurrent list in the Constitution of India guides government regarding education. Article 15, 39 f, 42, 45, and 47 refers to education in India. Constitution of India largely perceives education as means of social change and to gain equality in society. Special efforts were taken in the area of women ’s education and that of marginalized communities through various Constitutional provisions, schemes, and programs.

Various commissions and committees were appointed on women’s education in the post-independence period. Indian University Commission in 1948 perceived education to enable women to contribute in all walks of life and discusses various aspects of women ’s education. It was all male-member committee and the idea the recommendations they put forth for women’s education was largely to reinforce their traditional role in household. Secondary Higher Education Commission (1952- 53) insists on teaching home science to women. Committee on Women’s Education (1957-59) recommended identical curriculum, establishment of training institutes for women teachers, facilities for adult education for women and others. Durgabai Deshmukh Committee (1958) was a significant step in the area of women’s education. Some of its recommendations were more funds for girl education, establishment of separate national council for women’s education, giving free uniform, textbooks and other material to students. Hansa Mehta Committee (1959) demanded equal curricula for men and women. The committee recommended teaching of vocational courses and home science to both boys and girls. Girl’s Education and Public Cooperation (1963-65) recommended hostels, efforts to bring married women teachers, compulsory education among others. Kothari Commission (1964- 66) asserted that women’s role had gone beyond mere bearing and rearing of children. The commission issued a mandate for comprehensive thinking on women’s education at all levels. Towards Equality report (1974) prepared by the Committee appointed by the Education and Social Welfare Department to understand the status of women in India gave recommendations in the area of education like same curriculum, pre-school education, co-education, part time education for girls, no ban for admission of girls in boys institutes, curricula should be common, preschool education for all children, universalization of education for the age group 6-14, introduction of sex education, provision of mixed staff, provision of common rooms and separate toilets, hostel facilities for girls and many others. Apart from these government initiatives there were lot of efforts taken in the area of voluntary sector.

Yet despite of all these efforts by government and voluntary organizations, lot remains to be done in the area of women’s education today. In 1991 female literacy was just 39.42%. Though access has increased over the years, retention of girl child remains a major issue. Educational achievements and caste, class, region and religion are intertwined. It is increasingly being recognized that if concrete difference has to be made in women’s status then it’s pertinent to address the gender issues in education.

6. Factors Affecting Women’s Education

a)    Patriarchal Society

One of the significant reasons for the adverse condition for women’s education is patriarchal male dominated society. Bringing up daughters is largely conceived as ‘watering someone else’s garden’ so parents don’t think it’s important to educate or to spend on their daughters in any other way. Even today in many families across India there are practices of: serving daughter with tea made of water, while milk added tea for the son, feeding son sumptuously and daughter with the leftover food, daughter sweeps, cleans, washes, feeds, work on the fields and fetches water while handling innumerable other domestic responsibilities while a son has a ‘luxury to study’, and of course many a times a daughter is sent to a government Marathi medium schools while a son is sent to a private English medium schools which are largely known for ‘quality education ’. If a son is not performing well in studies extra efforts are taken to ensure like sending him for tuitions and though a daughter is bright in studies is made to discontinue education for reasons like finance, spoils chances of getting ‘good’ grooms, and lack of educational facilities in the village.

The education of girl child by the family and policy makers has largely been justified in the interests of supplementary income generation, lower fertility rates and population control, better mothering skills, upholding “tradition” and spiritual values, and improving social cohesion. Most of these interests address women as instruments for the upkeep of the family and society, effacing their very identity and rights as individual human beings. The central paradox here is that education, which has been a site for the reproduction of social values and stereotypes which bind and constrain, is also potentially a site for empowerment (NCERT, 2006).

b) Gender-biased Syllabus

Unfortunately, education remains an important instrument to instil patriarchal values among the citizens of a country. Various studies on analysis of school textbooks and other aspects demonstrate that books and practices in school instil patriarchal values among the students. Text books still carry pictures like mother working in the kitchen, daughter sweeping floor, father reading newspaper and a younger brother playing with toys. Text books carry sentences which reinforce gendered roles like:

Sharad, bring vegetable

Kamala, cut the vegetables

Abhay, study

Sita, worship god

The Indian Institute of Education did a study of Marathi textbooks of past three decades in 2003. The table shows some of its main findings (Dyahadroy, 2003):

The linkages between gender and curriculum are complex and challenging. School textbooks are a crucial component in the acquisition of knowledge and unless syllabi are revised to incorporate a gendered perspective–along with other marginalised perspectives–schooling will reproduce the narrow biases–and the narrow basis of mainstream social science knowledge. It is important to recognise that regardless of all the work produced by feminist scholars unless a gender perspective is incorporated in the syllabi each generation of children will absorb the biases of existing ways of understanding society and reproduce these ways of thinking into the future (NCERT, 2006, p. 32).

c) Retention

One of the major challenges facing girl child education is the challenge of retaining them in the education system. The National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) (52nd round) data reports that almost 47% of the children who drop out of school cite inability to cope academically and lack of interest in studies as the predominant reasons. The dropout rates of girls, specially from the marginalized sections of society and the rural areas continues to be grim –9 out of every 10 girls ever enrolled in school do not complete schooling, and only 1 out of every 100 girls enrolled in Class I reaches Class XII in rural areas (NCERT, 2006). Factors cited for dropout include poor teaching, non -comprehension, difficulties of coping and high costs of private tuition or education. Despite the education system ’s focused efforts to include girls, it continues to “ push out” those who are already within. Clearly issues of curriculum and pedagogy require equal and critical attention, in addition to enrolment (NCERT, 2006). National-level surveys and data also show that 9 out of every 10 girls ever enrolled in school could not complete schooling. (NSSO – 1995 -96). Only 1 out of every 100 girls enrolled in Class I reaches Class XII in rural areas and 14 out of every 100 girls enrolled in Class I reach Class XII in urban areas. (NSSO, 1997).

While the cost of education is a reason for poorer children not enrolling or dropping out of school, studies show that school factors are also responsible. One of the major reasons why children, both boys and girls, in both rural and urban areas drop out is lack of interest in studies; hostile environments, poor teaching, non-comprehension and difficulties of coping (NCERT, 2006).

d) Poverty

Data increasingly demonstrates that the school system is betraying the poor. Domestic responsibilities and the widespread perception of girls merely as future homemakers contribute to the problem and girls get short shrift when the costs of education magnify. They are withdrawn from school. Therefore, though government and voluntary organisation are taking efforts to include girls in the education system, the system itself pushes girls out. And those girls within the system too don’t benefit much because of the gender-blind curriculum and pedagogy issues.

e) Privatization of Education

In the changing context of globalization and neo-liberalism, there is increasing privatization of education right since the pre-school to higher education level. Privatisation has increased the cost of education and thus throws girls, and marginalised communities out of mainstream education. These policies are bound to exacerbate gender discrimination in the area of education, in part because in many countries parents favour the education of boys over girls. Research is increasingly demonstrating that privatisation of education need not guarantee quality education.

As Manjarekar (2003) observes, ‘The devaluation of government schooling over the past twenty years or so has been speeded up by market reforms since the early 1990s. Data from urban areas shows that corporations and government schools now mainly have poor girls and very and very poor children from other marginal communities; in many cities, municipal schools with good infrastructure are lying vacant’. Secondary education has received very little research attention in relation to access to schools, the experiences of students, and educational outcomes.

Abraham (2006), in a survey of a stratified sample of government secondary school alumni and their parents in the city of Mumbai in 2003, points out the fact that at the secondary stage, state aided but privately managed schools have expanded over the decades, while government schools have declined. She argues that ‘ by curtailing direct investments in the schooling of the poor and indirectly subsidizing private schooling of the middle classes, the state deprives the poor of schooling and contributes to the reproduction of social inequalities through schooling ’ (Abraham 2006:192).

Today the state schools are largely dominated by children of the poor, belonging mainly to the lower castes and minorities (Nambissan 2010; NIAS 2002). This trend has been particularly pronounced in the 1990s, the period when policies of liberalization were implemented, which led to the downsizing of the public sector, the coming of the new economy and insecure futures.

7) Summary

The above sections deal with the relation between education and women and gender at large. It begins by discussion education as a social institution, citing trajectory of sociology of education in India. It discusses in detail various studies in sociology of education that has dealt with gender issues in education. After reviewing history of women’s education in India, it deals with the factors affecting women’s education. It argues that all the efforts taken in the direction of women’s education will be successful only when gender aspects in education will be addressed meaningfully.

REFERENCES

• Abraham, L. 2006. ‘Access to and Outcomes of Secondary Education for the Urban Poor: Findings from a Study in Mumbai City’, Rajagiri Journal of Social Development, 2(2): 192-213.
• Bassi, T. 2003. ‘Gender in schools: Observations from an Exploratory Study’ in Journal of Indian Education, 29 (3):135-46.
• Bowels, Herbert, and Gintis, Samuel. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Chanana,  2006,  Sociology  of  Education  and  Sociology  in  India:  Disciplinary  Boundaries  and Institutional Spaces in Nambissan, Geetha and Rao Srinivasa. (ed.,): Sociology of Education in India Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns, Oxford.
• Chanana, Karuna. 2008. Female Sexuality and Education of Hindu Girls in India in Rege, Sharmila (Ed.). Sociology of Gender, pp 287-317. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Chanana, Karuna. 1988. Socialization, education, and women: explorations in gender identity. Orient Longman.
• Chanana, Karuna. 2002. View from the Margins Sociology of Education and Gender in EPW September 7, 2002.
• Chanana, Karuna. 2003. ‘Female Sexuality and Education of Hindu Girls in India’ in Rege, Sharmila. Sociology of Gender: The Challenge of Feminist Sociological Thought. Sage.
• Chanana, Karuna. 2003. ‘Gender inequality in Primary Schooling in India: The Human Right Perspective’ in Tilak, J.B.G. 2003. Education and Society and Development, National and International Experience. Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.
• Chitnis, Suma. 1982. ‘Sociology of Education in India: Emerging Trends and Needed Research’ in Nayar, P.K.B. Sociology in India, Retrospect and Prospect, New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.
• Chitnis, Suma. 2013. ‘Sociology of Education in India, A Personal Account ’ in Nambissan, Geetha and Rao Srinivasa. (ed.,): Sociology of Education in India Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns, Oxford.
• Chopra, R. 2005. ‘Sisters and Brothers: Schooling, Family and Migration’ in R Chopra and P. Jeffrey (ed.): Educational Regimes in Contemporary India, pp. 299-315. New Delhi: Sage Publications, in collaboration with Helmut Reifeld, Konrad Adenauer Stifbtung and Economic and Social Research Council.
• Donner, H. 2006. ‘Committed Mothers and Well Adjusted Children: Privatization, Early-Years in
• Education and Motherhood in Calcutta’ in Modern Asian Studies, 40(2): 371-95.
• Dyahadroy, 2003. Occasional Paper: Critical Study of the Themes related in the Marathi language textbooks of Primary level over the last three decades. Indian Institute of Education.
• Drury, D. 1993. The Iron School Master. Education, Employment and the Family in India. New Delhi:Hindustan Publishing Corporation.
• Fourth Research of Survey in Education. 1988. New Delhi: NCERT.
• Gautam Meenakshi, 2015. Gender, Subject Choice and Higher Education in India Exploring ‘Choices’ and ‘Constraints’ of Women Students in Contemporary Education Dialogue January 2015 vol. 12 no. 1 31-58.
• Hansen, Donald A. 1967. ‘The uncomfortable relation of sociology and education ’ in Hansen, Donald A, and Joel E Gerstl. (eds.): On Education – Sociological Perspectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Horton, Paul; Hunt Chester. (2004). Sociology. Tata MacGraw Hill.
• Jadhav, Nirmala. 2009. Women’s Education in India in Women Studies Centre Series.
• Jayram, N. 1977, Education and Social Structure. Ph.D. Thesis in Sociology. Bangalore University.Bangalore.
• Kamat, A.R. 1985. Education and Social Change. Bombay: Somaiya.
• Manjarekar, Nandini. 2003. ‘Contemporary Challenges to Women’s Education: Towards an Elusive Goal?’ Economic and Political Weekly, 38(43): 4577-82.
• Manjarekar, Nandini. 2013. Women School Teachers in New Times: Some Preliminary Reflections in Indian Journal of Gender Studies June 2013 20: 335-356.
• Mukhopadhyay Carol C. and S.Seymour (eds.) 1994. Women, Education and Family Structure in India, Boulder: Westview Press.
• Nambissan, Geeta. 2010. Exclusion and Discrimination in Schools: Experiences of Dalit Children’, in S.Thorat and K. S. Newman (eds) Blocked by Caste: Economic Discrimination and Social Exclusions in Modern India, pp. 253-87. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Nambissan, Geetha and Rao Srinivasa. (ed., 2013): Sociology of Education in India Changing Contours and Emerging Concerns, Oxford
• Nambissan, Geetha. Sociology of School Education in India, A Review of Research, 2000-10 in Singh, Yogendra. 2014. ‘ICSSR Research Surveys and Explorations’ in Indian Sociology Volume 2, Development and Change, Oxford.
• NCERT, 2006, Gender Issues in Education. Delhi: NCERT.
• NIAS (National Institute of Advanced Studies). 2002. Caste, Class and School. Tanjavur, Tamil Nadu:Local Education Report. Bangalore. NIAS.
• Page, Elspeth. 2005. ‘Negotiation and Compromise: Gender and Government Elementary Education’, in R Chopra and P. Jeffrey (eds), Educational Regimes in Contemporary India, pp. 299-315. New Delhi: Sage Publications, in collaboration with Helmut Reifeld, Konrad Adenauer Stifbtung and Economic and Social Research Council.
• Paik, S. 2009. ‘Chhadi lage chham chham, vidya yeyi gham gham (The harder the stick beats, the faster the flow of knowledge): Dalit Women’s Struggle for Education,’ Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16(2): 175-204.
• Rege, Sharmila. (2004). Dalit Women Talk differently: A critique of Difference and towards a Dalit feminist standpoint position in Chaudhari, Maitreyee. (Ed). Feminism in India, New Delhi: Kali for Women. Chanana (2008:287)
• Rege, Sharmila. 2003. (Ed)., Sociology of Gender: The Challenge of Feminist Sociological Thought. Sage.
• Ruhela, S.P. 1969. Contributions to Sociology of Education in India. Volume 1. New Delhi: Jain Brothers.
• Saha, Lawrence. 2008. ‘Sociology of Education’ in 21st Century Education: A reference handbook, Sage.
• Singh, A, Pallikadavath, S & Ram, F 2014, ‘Gender differentials in inequality of educational opportunities: new evidence from an Indian youth study’ European Journal of Development Research, vol 26, no. 5, pp. 707-724. DOI: 10.1057/ejdr.2013.35
• Sumner, W.G.. (1906). Folkways. Sage.
• Seymour, Susan. 2002. ‘Family and Gender Systems in Transition: A Thirty-five Year Perspective’, in Diane P Mines and Sarah Lamb (eds) Everyday Life in South Asia, pp. 100-15. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
• Velaskar, Padma. 1998. Ideology, Education and the Political Struggle for Liberation: Change and Challenge among the Dalits of Maharashtra in Shukla Sureshchandra, Kaul Rekha (Ed.). 1998. Education, Development, and Underdevelopment. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Velaskar Padma. Quality and Inequality in Indian Education Some Critical Policy Concerns. Contemporary Education Dialogue January 2010 vol. 7 no. 1 58-93
• Velaskar, Padma. 2010. ‘Quality and Inequality in Indian Education: Some Critical Policy Concerns’ in Contemporary Education Dialogue. Vol 7 No 1 January. 2010.
• Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning to Labour How Working Class Kids get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough:Saxon House.
• Young, Robert. The Sociology of Education A Personal View in Change: Transformations in Education.Volume 5.1, May 2002.