Invisible Biases, Visible Gaps: How Classroom Dynamics Reflect Social Inequality

By Nikita Sonawane

Historically, education in India was a privilege restricted to certain castes and primarily to boys. Over generations, the tireless efforts of social reformers helped widen access, gradually transforming education from an exclusive entitlement into a more universal right. This progress often creates the comforting belief that discrimination in education has disappeared. Yet, the truth is more complex. Discrimination has not vanished; it has merely changed form. What was once explicit and openly practised has now become subtle, hidden, and often unconscious. These contemporary forms of bias, shaped by both gender and caste, and deepened where the two intersect, continue to influence students’ confidence, learning experiences, academic achievements, and future opportunities. Their invisibility makes them even more powerful, as they frequently go unnoticed or unacknowledged.

Consider a familiar scenario from a typical Indian school. A Grade 4 class settles in after an enjoyable Diwali break. The teacher begins a lesson on “Units of Measurement” and asks, “Who can tell me what measurement means?” Eager hands shoot up, boys and girls alike. But when the teacher scans the room, she calls out, “Yes, Suraj, you tell.” Suraj responds with confidence, while Mukta, who had also raised her hand, quietly lowers it.

What seems like an ordinary moment actually reveals the subtleties of unconscious gender bias. The teacher may not intend to favour boys, but research shows that boys often receive more opportunities to speak, more attention, and more praise (Bassi et al., 2016). Over time, such small acts accumulate: boys grow more confident, while girls become more hesitant to participate. Studies have consistently shown that gender bias shapes classroom expectations and communication patterns (R. M. A., 2013; Bassi et al., 2016).

Arceo-Gomez et al. (2022) define gender bias as any differential treatment based on gender. One of its most pervasive forms is Unconscious Gender Bias (UGB), described by ILO (2017) as “unintentional and automatic mental associations based on gender, stemming from traditions, norms, values, culture and/or experience.” These automatic associations shape decisions instinctively, pushing people to make quick judgments based on gendered stereotypes rather than actual ability. In classrooms, these judgments influence who teachers call on, how mistakes are corrected, and what expectations are communicated, subtly shaping learning trajectories.

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Gender Gap Report (2025) provides a broader context. The report states that 68.8% of the global gender gap has been bridged, but at the current pace, it will take another 123 years to achieve full equality. India’s performance remains concerning: ranked 131st out of 148 countries, slipping from 129th in 2024. Although India scored strongly on educational attainment, 97.1 out of 100, gender bias within classrooms continues to influence other components of the index, such as Economic Participation and Opportunity, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. This contrast illustrates an essential point: while access to education may have improved, equality within educational spaces has not.

Although gender gaps in enrolment and attendance have narrowed significantly over the years (UNESCO, 2025), the school environment continues to treat boys and girls differently in ways that may seem small but have lasting consequences. Studies (Bassi et al., 2016; Ghosh & Yadav, 2025) show that teachers often reinforce gender stereotypes unconsciously. Even classroom materials contribute to this. Marks and Amodei (2023) observed that textbooks frequently depict men as doctors, engineers, and scientists, while women appear as teachers or nurses. Even when teachers encourage girls to pursue STEM subjects, such implicit messaging limits girls’ aspirations and self-belief by restricting their sense of what is possible.

Beyond textbooks, schools transmit powerful messages through what is often called the “hidden curriculum”, the unspoken rules, social norms, and expectations woven into everyday school life. As the Cambridge CTL explains, these include assumptions and customs that shape students’ understanding of roles, status, and behaviour. In many Indian schools, boys and girls sit separately, stand separately in assemblies, and are given distinct responsibilities or privileges. These everyday practices silently teach children that gender-based separation is natural and expected.

Teachers themselves carry memories of their own schooling into their professional behaviour. Marks and Amodei (2023) found that preservice teachers recalled numerous experiences of implicit gender bias, many of which influence their teaching practices later. Familiar phrases such as “boys don’t cry” or “girls are caring” may appear innocuous, but they reinforce narrow gender expectations. R. M. A. (2013) found that while teachers often believe they treat all students equally, they are more likely to praise boys for assertiveness and girls for quietness, subtly suggesting that leadership belongs to boys while obedience belongs to girls. These everyday expressions of bias shape students’ sense of themselves and their place in the world.

The academic consequences of such biases are measurable. Rakshit and Sahoo (2023) demonstrated a significant gender gap in mathematics achievement among secondary school students, with boys consistently outperforming girls. This gap grows over the academic year, despite no such difference in English. Their findings, along with evidence from other studies (Bassi et al., 2016; Rakshit and Sahoo, 2023), show that gender bias by teachers directly affects girls’ math scores and confidence. This, in turn, influences their interest in STEM fields, future career choices, and earning potential. Such patterns contribute to the underrepresentation of women in senior leadership roles and reinforce gendered division in labour markets.

Yet, understanding classroom inequality requires recognising that gender never acts alone. In India, caste remains a powerful force shaping educational outcomes. Research (Goel and Husain, 2018; Banerjee et al., 2025) increasingly shows that caste and gender intersect, influencing how students are perceived and supported. Banerjee et al. (2025) found that teachers systematically underestimate the academic performance of backward-caste students, especially SC/ST children, with the bias particularly pronounced when teachers belong to forward castes. These judgments reflect teachers’ perceptions rather than students’ actual performance. Even after accounting for attendance, class size, and teacher characteristics, these stereotypes persist, reducing attention, limiting opportunities, and undermining confidence.

The intersection of caste and gender, however, is not always predictable. Rakshit and Sahoo (2022) found that teachers’ caste and class biases do not significantly affect the gender gap in mathematics scores, suggesting that caste and gender operate as distinct social identities whose effects do not neatly overlap. Their findings also indicate that structural barriers for backward-caste students may be so overwhelming that the relative influence of teacher stereotypes becomes less measurable.

Educational inequalities extend beyond classrooms into broader social and political structures. Halim et al. (2016) found that greater political representation of SC/ST women leads to improved educational outcomes for SC/ST children, particularly girls. Where SC/ST women hold more legislative seats, girls are more likely to complete grades and progress on time. Interestingly, similar representation among non-SC/ST women does not yield the same benefits for SC/ST children. This may be because non-SC/ST women legislators often prioritise higher education over primary schooling, while SC/ST women leaders invest more directly in primary school facilities, female teachers, and broader learning environments. Their leadership provides role models for young girls and helps shift community perceptions around education.

Female leadership within education itself also plays a transformative role. Women leaders tend to prioritise collaboration, relationship-building with communities, and sustained attention to learning outcomes (UNESCO, 2025). Increasing women’s representation in school management, educational administration, and political structures not only improves learning environments but also reshapes public perception of women in positions of authority.

To create inclusive classrooms, schools do not always need large-scale reforms. Small yet intentional steps can spark meaningful change. Rotating seating arrangements, for instance, helps break social divisions and encourages students to interact across gender and caste lines. Strengthening communication among teachers, parents, and communities fosters trusting relationships that enable more responsive and equitable learning environments. Regular gender-sensitisation training for teachers can help uncover unconscious biases, enabling more inclusive teaching practices. Increasing the number of female teachers is another important step in creating gender-equitable learning spaces.

At a deeper level, educational transformation must also be philosophical. The Phule-Ambedkarite-Feminist (PAF) framework offers a powerful guide. By integrating the principles of critical understanding (prajna), empathetic love (karuna), and equality (samata), PAF pedagogies challenge the relationship between power and knowledge (Rege, 2010). They seek to democratise learning spaces, disrupt social hierarchies, and cultivate classrooms where every child, regardless of gender or caste, is valued and empowered.

Taken together, these studies reveal a central truth: classroom dynamics mirror the social realities that surround them. Even when discrimination is not visible, it shapes expectations, interactions, opportunities, and outcomes. To build truly equitable educational environments, we must first acknowledge that contemporary discrimination is not loud or obvious. It is subtle, layered, and deeply embedded in everyday practices. And precisely because it is invisible, we must make it visible through research, reflection, and intentional action. Only then can classrooms become spaces where all children, irrespective of their identity, are given the chance to learn, grow, and thrive.

References: 

Arceo-Gomez, E. & Campos-Vazquez, R. (2022). Gender Bias in Evaluation Processes. Economics of Education Review. vol. 89, Aug. 2022, p. 102272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2022.102272. 

Banerjee, R., Mitra, S., Sahoo, S., & Gupta, A. (2026). Caste identity and teachers’ biased expectations: Evidence from Bihar, India. Journal of Development Economics, 179, 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103650

Bassi, M., Blumberg, R. L., & Mateo-Berganza Díaz, M. M. (2016). Under the "Cloak of Invisibility": Gender Bias in Teaching Practices and Learning Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.18235/0011737 

Chudgar, A., & Sankar, V. (2008). The relationship between teacher gender and student achievement: Evidence from five Indian states. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(5), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920802351465

Ghosh, D., & Yadav, V. K. (2025). Exploring gender stereotypical attitudes towards using technology in teaching and learning: Perspectives of prospective secondary-level school teachers. Indian Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 146–164. https://journals.ncert.gov.in/IJET/article/view/1417

Goel, S., & Husain, Z. (2018). Gender, caste, and education in India: A cohort-wise study of drop-out from schools. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 58, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2018.10.002

Halim, N., Yount, K. M., & Cunningham, S. (2016). Do scheduled caste and scheduled tribe women legislators mean lower gender-caste gaps in primary schooling in India?. Social science research, 58, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.01.002 

International Labour Organisation. (2017, August 31). Breaking barriers: Unconscious gender bias in the workplace. https://www.ilo.org/publications/breaking-barriers-unconscious-gender-bias-workplace 

Marks, M. J., & Amodei, M. L. (2023). Implicit gender bias in the classroom: Memories from K–12 education. Journal of Research Initiatives, 7(2), Article 2. https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol7/iss2/2

Rakshit, S., & Sahoo, S. (2023). Biased teachers and gender gap in learning outcomes: Evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 161, 103041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.103041 

Rege, S. (2010). Education as “Trutiya Ratna”: Towards Phule-Ambedkarite Feminist Pedagogical Practice. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(44/45), 88–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787534 

R. M., A. (2013). Gender issues in school and classroom: A case study of Pondicherry. The Primary Teacher, 38(1–2), 100–108. https://ejournals.ncert.gov.in/index.php/tpt/article/view/925 

UNESCO. (2025). Global education monitoring report 2025: gender report: women lead for learning. https://doi.org/10.54676/deod4878 

World Economic Forum. (2025). Global Gender Gap Report 2025 https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/