Across many communities, a combination of cultural beliefs, economic pressures, and social norms continue to limit girls’ access to education. These barriers are often deeply rooted and multifaceted.

For example, in low-income households, poverty plays a central role in determining who gets to go to school. Families struggling to make ends meet often prioritize sons, viewing them as future breadwinners, while daughters are expected to stay home, help with household chores, or care for younger siblings. This reinforces the harmful notion that educating girls has limited value, either because girls are seen as temporary members of the household who will eventually marry and leave, or because school curricula are viewed as irrelevant to their future roles.

Additional obstacles include a lack of basic infrastructure that would make schools more accessible and welcoming for girls, such as female teachers, separate classrooms, clean toilets, and safe transport. In many areas, once a girl reaches puberty, she is pulled out of school to protect her “honor” and is often married off early, cutting short any chance of continuing her education. This belief—that a girl’s primary role is to marry and bear children—continues to drive early dropout rates among girls.

Parental Attitudes: Altruism vs. Self-Interest

Social scientists often describe parental investment in children using two extreme frameworks: altruistic and capitalistic.

In an altruistic model, parents value all their children equally, regardless of gender. They distribute resources—such as food, education, and emotional support—fairly among sons and daughters. In this scenario, a girl’s future is seen as just as important and worthy of investment as a boy’s. Here, cultural norms are less influential, because the well-being of all children is prioritized equally.

In contrast, the capitalistic model views parenting from a return-on-investment perspective. In societies like India, where sons are culturally expected to remain with their parents after marriage, while daughters traditionally leave to live with their husbands, parents may feel that educating boys is a better financial investment. Sons are expected to provide for parents in old age, while daughters are seen as “belonging” to another family once married. As a result, parents acting in self-interest may invest in the education and development of their sons, while minimizing expenses on daughters—even expecting girls to contribute labor at home to cover their own upkeep.

This approach not only leads to disparities in education but also reinforces gender roles that devalue girls’ potential and autonomy. Despite efforts to promote gender equality in education, cultural and economic rationalizations still contribute to the undervaluing of girls in many households.