EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

KENYA

EDUCATION RIGHTS
UPDATE

Hakijamii

Issue 5 - April 2010

EDUCATION FINANCING

The introduction of Free Primary Education (FPE)

By Odindo Opiata, Executive Director, Hakijamii

ince 2008 Hakijamii, with support from

Concern Worldwide, has been publishing
Quarterly Education Rights Updates. The
primary audience of these publications were
community groups working on issues on the right
to education, and most of the coverage focused on
activities undertaken by these groups. Following
an evaluation, it was discovered that a more
comprehensive publication that targets policy
makers, civil society and grassroot organizations
would also be useful. This is the first issue of the
new publication.
Each edition of the publication will focus on
a specific theme. The theme this time round
is: Education Financing. The introduction of
Education Financing

free primary education (FPE) in 2003 was,

predictably, welcomed by millions of Kenyans.
Immediately the program was initiated, intake
rose from 0.969 million in 2002 to 1.312 million
in 2003, which was an increase of 35%. Intakes
in subsequent years fell back a little, but by 2005
were still around 20% higher than they had been
during the years preceding the FPE era. Total
candidature in KCPE has almost doubled since
2003, having risen from 481,111 to 727,045 in
2009. However, statistics released for the 2009
Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE)
showed that performance in the examination has
been improving at a slower rate since 2003, a sign
that increasingly, the high investment in the sector
is not yielding quality results.

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

THE BUDGET POLICY

STATEMENT (BPS)
and Basic Rights

By Odindo Opiata, Executive Director, Hakijamii

The Minister of Finance, Uhuru Kenyatta takes a break

during the reading of the national budget. Behind him
is the Minister for Education,Prof Sam Ongeri

Although we usually talk of free primary

education, the reality is it is not without
charge in the true sense of the word. From the
human rights perspective, free is only used
within the context where the costs involved in
the provision of the service is not borne by the
citizen, but is borne by the State. However,
the State does not generate any income of its
own. Practically all its revenue comes from
other sources, especially taxation. Its role is
fundamentally to act as a custodian of public
resources.
As we wait for the reading of the national
budget, it is time that citizens and the
government took stock of what bedevils
the use and monitoring of public resources
in this country. It is not just enough for the
government to make political capital that
primary education is free; it must be available,
be of acceptable quality and be affordable. All
these demand a more rigorous examination
of the manner in which money set aside
for education is allocated and utilized. The
articles in this issue will highlight some
pertinent issues that ought to inform such a
debate.

n the 21st day of March 2010, the Minister

of Finance Hon. Uhuru Kenyatta tabled
the first Budget Policy Statement in
the countrys history in Parliament. This was
pursuant to the requirements under the Fiscal
Management Act 2009 that requires that before
the National Budget is read, a Budget Policy
Statement (BPS) must be tabled in Parliament. It
marked a fundamental step in democratizing the
budget-making process.
A keen reading of the document, however, reveals
a number of gaps that will have to be addressed
if the process is to be truly useful in ensuring
that the budget is used as a tool in the progressive
realization of human rights. The budget is one of
the most important indicators of the governments
commitment to complying with its obligations to
respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of its
citizens. A Budget Policy Statement therefore
serves as the clearest and most concrete reflection
of the values of a country. It demonstrates a
governments priorities, whom the government
values, whose work it values and whom it rewards.
In a nutshell, its major priority is to act as an
important tool that provides for transformation
to meet the needs of the most marginalized and
the poorest. The Policy Statement, as a minimum,
should translate human rights standards into
budget concepts, language, processes and
figures.
Paragraph 2 of the Budget Policy Statement
states that: The overriding policy thrust of this
BPS is to consolidate the economic recovery

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

gains made so far and to put the economy back
onto a firm foundation of high and sustainable
growth. To achieve the envisaged performance,
the Government will step up investment in the
key priority social and economic sectors. Equally
important is the planned up-scaling of investment
in critical physical infrastructure such as
roads, rail, power generation as well as power
transmission and distribution systems, and port
modernization and expansion.
Employment creation and poverty reduction are
also listed as important objectives. Although
economic growth is certainly an important element
in the realization of human rights, the relationship
is not automatic. Indeed, the classical theories that
if the economy is doing well the lives of those
living in the economy (especially the poor) will be
better the so-called trickle-down effect is no
longer supported by empirical evidence. Economic
growth alone does not guarantee progressive
realization of human rights. Thus, the BPS should
have provided a more focused framework that
addresses how much of the resources are spent on
items that are likely to promote human rights such
as basic education, water and sanitation, food and
primary health care.

tendency to equate human rights with material

wealth should be de-emphasized in the Policy.
Poverty reduction is obviously a noble objective.
But it should not be addressed merely within
macroeconomic issues that affect the poor, such
as high inflation and slower economic growth.
The Policy should focus on poverty within the
context of broad developmental issues as they
relate to poverty and input from stakeholders,
including the poor themselves. This will allow
the country to address and understand poverty as
a societal and human rights issue, and not just as
a macroeconomic issue.
The Policy, rightly, acknowledges that resources
are scarce. Governments are under no obligation
to go beyond available resources in achieving the
progressive realization of economic and social
rights. However, they are required to demonstrate
reasonable effort and where resource
constraints are binding, this obligation can be
discharged through the adoption of policies and
programmes that facilitate the achievement of
human rights over time.

It is noteworthy that this

Policy Statement is coming
at a time when the country is
in the process of undertaking
fundamental constitutional
reforms. The emerging new
constitutional dispensation
has placed considerable
emphasis on how efficiently
resources are deployed and
this should be explicitly
reflected in the Policy
Statement. People are the
wealth of nations and the
The BPS should serve as a tool that ensures that the needs of the poor are met

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

This approach has been successfully used in South
Africa where the Constitutional Court, has upheld
claims regarding the violation of socio-economic
rights in a series of landmark judgments. These
cases establish that resource constraints do not
relieve the government of the positive obligation
of fulfilling its citizenssocio-economic rights by
taking positive measures to eliminate or reduce
the large areas of severe deprivation that afflict
South Africa. However, the Court has also sought
to delimit the nature and scope of the duties that
flow from this positive obligation. It has reasoned
that where resource constraints are binding, the
responsibilities of the state can be discharged
through the adoption of policies and programs
that facilitate the achievement of human rights
over time, rather than their immediate fulfillment.
The BPS should perhaps take a cue from this
by outlining key policies and programs that the
Government intends to adopt to achieve these rights.
In conclusion, the introduction of the BPS is a
significant step in opening up the budget process
to public scrutiny and should be supported. It
provides an opportunity to scrutinize government
priorities and has the potential of significantly
enhancing accountability and transparency. It is
also a challenge for human rights advocates to
improve their skills in using the budget as a tool
for the progressive realization of human rights.
For too long budget-making has been viewed as
too technical and beyond the reach of ordinary
citizens. In introducing the BPS, Parliament
has provided an opportunity to demystify the
budget. For it to be meaningful, citizen groups
must sharpen their understanding of the budget
and in particular its relationship to the realization
of human rights. The limitations of the BPS
notwithstanding, all the stakeholders must now
provide informed inputs in the process so that
the Government can respect, protect and fulfill
the rights of citizens through proper resource
allocation, utilization and monitoring.

BPS and

THE RIGHT TO PRIMARY

EDUCATION
By Odindo Opiata, Executive Director, Hakijamii

vailable cross-country growth studies

demonstrate the important role played
by education; primary education is
of particular relevance to the poor. There
is a growing body of empirical evidence
which has established that universal primary
education plays a key role in the eradication
of poverty, achievement of social justice and
expanding space for individuals to make
informed choices.
The BPS, in the sector priorities, has placed
education under human resource development.
This sector also includes education, labour,
medical services, public health and sanitation
services. There is a clear linkage between all
these categories, but given the importance
of education, it would perhaps be useful if
it were considered on its own. This would
give greater visibility, create awareness and
provide a more detailed analysis of issues
linked to the education sector.
A more puzzling omission however, is the
fact that the Policy is completely silent on
the ongoing controversy surrounding the use
of resources for the free primary education
program in Kenya. When the Governments
of United Kingdom and United States
announced that they were suspending funding
to the education sector following allegations
of corruption, there was a lot hue and cry
from the public for action to be taken against
the culprits. So far, a few officials have been
taken to court and charged.

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

The Policy should have explicitly addressed the
urgent need for freedom of information relating
to the allocation and use of these resources.
Available evidence clearly shows that absence
of freedom of information is one of the primary
causes of inefficient resource allocation and
utilization. Less access to information often
results in capture by special interest groups and in
corruption by government officials, with strongly
adverse consequences for investment and overall
economic growth.
Freedom of information is a key pillar in the
promotion of efficient resource allocation. It
serves to strengthen accountability and ensures
that appropriate democratic control mechanisms
are in place. The current cases bedeviling free
primary funds that have led to suspension of
donor funding by the Governments of United
Kingdom and United States of America would
perhaps have been avoided if there had been
increased access to information. The Right to
Information Movement in India, which calls for
a right to access to all public records at all times
by all citizens, has already led to concrete results
in relation to the reduction of corruption in public
service. In Rajasthan, for example, the Right

to Information Movement has contributed to

eradication of corrupt practices in relief projects.
The Budget Policy Statement should have put
emphasis on the urgent need to establish a range of
complementary institutions (political, economic,
legal, etc.) that are necessary for the achievement
of accountability and efficient resource allocation.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) cross-country study
on the underlying determinants of economic
growth finds evidence of the relationship between
the quality of institutions and checks and
balances on the abuse of power and the exercise
of arbitrary government. Checks and balances are
not just important with regard to the exercise of
political power, but also in the allocation and use
of public resources and the BPS should clearly
and explicitly incorporate this as a fundamental
cross-cutting policy budget principle.
The role of strengthened accountability
mechanisms in reducing corruption and achieving
efficient public service delivery is increasingly
being highlighted in policy advice. Increasing the
influence of beneficiaries over providers is key to
the success of sustainable economic growth.

Education should have been given greater visibility in the Budget Policy Statement

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

Public sector inefficiency often results in
systematic public policy failures in education,
health and food security. Many case studies have
linked persistent public sector inefficiency to a
lack of public sector accountability, highlighting
the failure to introduce effective accountability
mechanisms in the context of even the most
extreme forms of public policy failure (such as
public health centers being closed on a weekday,
or systematic absenteeism by teachers in public
schools) and suggests that low accountability
in the schooling system has played a role in
depriving millions of children of basic education.
The role of counter-veiling power structures in
asymmetric power situations with the possibility
of concentrations of power in one domain being
checked and restrained by a counter-veiling
configuration of forces in another domain can
therefore not be over-emphasized in a Budget
Policy Paper.
Under sector programs, outputs and performance
indicators, the Policy appears to have missed out
on some critical priority areas. This may be as a
result of the above weaknesses. On outputs, it lists
rationalized operational structure for the Ministry
of Education (MOE); improved access to quality
basic education; availability of learning/teaching
materials to all public schools; increased enrolment
in arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) and slums and
improved quality of basic education and training.
Key performance indicators comprise enhanced
resource mobilization; strengthened educational
bodies; student textbook ratio of at least 1:3 for
lower primary and 1:2 for upper primary in all
primary schools; an increase from 56% to 60%
in the proportion of early childhood development
and education (ECDE) teachers trained by 2011
and an increase in the number of informal schools
registered within Non-formal Education (NFE)
policy guidelines.

Available anecdotal evidence seems to suggest

that the greatest challenge facing the free
primary program is corruption in the use of
the allocated funds. While rationalization of
the operational structure for the Ministry of
Education may be helpful, the most urgent policy
interventions should be access to information on
how resources are allocated, and utilized and the
establishment and operationalization of citizen
watchdog institutions. Without free access to
information, cases of corruption will continue.
Moreover, strengthened educational management
bodies in which the citizens are not sufficiently
represented will not improve accountability and
transparency.
On the budgetary figures, it is not quite clear what
basis informed the allocations. In the financial
year 2009/10 the allocation for education policy
planning and administration is Kshs 6.8 billion,
while for 2010/2011 the projected allocation is
Kshs 4.3 billion. For 2011/12 the figure is Kshs 5.4
billion and 2012/13 it is Kshs 6.7 billion. Under
basic education the figures are Kshs 15 billion for
2009/2010; Kshs 15.9 billion for 2010/2011; Kshs
13.4 billion for 2011/2012 and Kshs 14.3 billion
for 2012/2013.
While there are instances of increase in allocation
for some years, on the whole, the pattern indicates
gradual decrease. A key question, from the
perspective of progressive realization of the
right to education, is whether these calculations
have been arrived at after making the necessary
adjustments in the context of available or
projected economic data for inflation. A human
rights-based budget must make adjustments for
inflation otherwise what may, on the surface look
like an increase in allocation may in fact prove to
be a mirage because changes in Consumer Price
Index could mean that the government is not able
to hire as many teachers, buy as many books and
construct as many classrooms.
Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

UNIVERSALIZING PRIMARY
EDUCATION IN KENYA:
Is it Sustainable?

were provided a new educational opportunity.

However, has the abolishment of tuition fees
made basic education accessible to all Kenyan
children?

By Ms Joy Karemesi, Urban slums Basic Education Campaign

niversal basic education is largely

understood as universal primary schooling.
Only after the Jomtien Conference
on Education for All (EFA) in 1990 was it
understood that by making primary education
free, it would include children from poor families
and thereby perhaps become universal. Schooling
costs such as examination fees, salary top-ups,
textbooks, materials, school uniforms, feeding,
transportation and sports are a major constraint
to achieving Universal Primary Education (UPE),
especially for the urban poor and people living in
arid and semi-arid lands.
Kenya has been trying to achieve Universal
Primary Education as a national goal since it
attained independence in 1963. Re-introduction
of free primary education in 2003 dramatically
increased the number of children attending
school. Economically-disadvantaged children

Since its re-introduction, the initiative for free

primary education has been strongly supported
by the donor community. Though the Kenyan
government increased the allocation of education
financing to approximately 17% of the national
budget from 2003 to date, the FPE programme is
still strongly supported by donor funding.
The UK, World Bank, Canada and UNICEF have
been providing pooled funding directly through
the Government to the Kenya Education Sector
Support Programme (KESSP). The UK pledged
US$ 88.8 million (Kshs 6.75 billion) over a
five-year period (starting in 2005) while the US
pledged US$ 7 million (Kshs 532 million). The
United Kingdoms Department for International
Development (DfID) offered support worth UK
55 million (Kshs 7 billion) over a five-year period
(2005-2010) to KESSP. An additional grant of Kshs
582 million was agreed upon in 2009 to specifically
target the improvement of water and sanitation

Universal Primary Education ensures that children from poor families have an opportunity to learn

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

Prof Sam Ongeri, the Minister for Education addresses journalists during a press conference on the FPE scandal

facilities for the poorest schools. Between 2005

and 2008, Kenya received US$ 21 million (Kshs
1.6 billion) through the Fast Track Initiative (FTI)
Catalytic Fund Grants, a World Bank basket
fund. The World Food Programme (US$ 13.9
million) and OPEC (US$ 9.9 million) too have
contributed to making the programme a success.
The over-reliance on donor aid to run Kenyas
free primary education programme is a cause
for concern. The cost of providing free primary
education is beyond the scope of the national
education budget, economic performance has
not been strong and donor finance is often
temporary. This mode of financing is definitely
not sustainable.
The aftermath of the recent FPE scandal where an
audit revealed that over US$ 1 million of the grants
was missing, and more than US$ 26 million had
been diverted from the fund raises questions over
the sustainability of the free primary education
policy.
In September 2009, the World Bank announced
that it had suspended funding worth US$ 80

million (Kshs. 6 billion) to the Kenya Education

Sector Support Programme (KESSP). In
December 2009, the UK also suspended its
education aid to Kenya. This was followed by the
United States of America who at the beginning of
2010 suspended disbursement of about $7 million
(Kshs. 532 million) in funding to Kenyas Primary
Education Program. These suspensions were as
a result of allegations of fraud. No funding has
been disbursed from the donor community since
the Kenyan Government announced discovery of
fraud in September 2009.
The FPE scandal has also resulted in a shift of donor
funding in the education sector. In February 2010,
the British government announced that it would
stop funding Kenyas Free Primary Education
Program through the countrys Ministry of
Education due to allegations of fraud. Instead, the
UK is exploring ways of channelling about $30
million earmarked for 2010-2011 directly to schools.
This shift in education financing by the donor
community is a serious blow to free primary
education, which is already threatened by
deteriorating quality of education due to high
Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

pupil-teacher ratio (estimated at 80:1), way above
the recommended ratio of 40:1; an acute shortage
of infrastructure like classrooms, toilets and
offices; lack of trained teachers especially in
urban informal settlements and rural areas; and
inadequate teaching and learning materials to
cater for the high number of enrolment.
The consequences of the FPE scandal could have
a profound negative effect on Kenyans who will
be most responsible for shaping the countrys
future development: children. Little attention has
been paid to the children of Kenya and how this
situation impacts on their future options, and the
future development of the nation. If nothing is
done soon to resolve the issue, the progress Kenya
has made over the past decade in improving
education could be at risk of coming undone.
Since the re-opening of schools in mid-January
2010, no disbursement to schools has been made
for the FPE allocation for the current financial
year. Since teachers and schools receive pay and
funding on a monthly basis, it is difficult to assess
the impact of withholding aid. While donors do
need to show that there are strings attached to
the accountability of this money, and there are
consequences, in the long term, the loss of such aid
could really hurt the Kenyan children by hindering
access to basic education, especially for those from
poor families, and by hindering improvement
in the quality of the education provided.
In view of these challenges, the attainment of
sustained free primary education might be an
illusion in the context of Kenya. Donor aid is
meant to building the capacity of the education
system by creating better-managed schools and
improved student-to-teacher ratios would improve
the quality of education in the future. So while
the withdrawal of the World Bank, Canada, UK
and US aid may not have an immediate impact
on student attendance, the future of our students
could be dire.
Education Financing

USBEC Petitions Mayor for

SCHOOL LAND

By Odindo Opiata, Executive Director, Hakijamii

ducation is a universal human right.

Besides being regarded as a right in
itself, it is also acknowledged as an
enabling right. This is because it creates the
voice through which rights can be claimed
and protected. Without education people lack
the capacity to achieve valuable functioning
as part of the living. Where people have
access to education they can develop the skills,
capacity and confidence to secure other rights.
Education gives people the ability to access
information detailing the range of rights that
they hold, and the governments obligations. It
supports people to develop the communication
skills to demand these rights, the confidence to
articulate their concerns in a variety of forums,
and the ability to negotiate with a wide range
of government officials and power holders.
The right to education has four main elements,
namely, availability, accessibility, acceptability
and adaptability. Accessibility requires that
the Government provides a system that is nondiscriminatory and accessible to all, and that
positive steps are taken to include the most
marginalised. It further places an obligation
on the Government to ensure that education
facilities are within easy, safe physical reach
for the children, or alternatively appropriate
transport facilities are made available.
India is one of the countries that have
specifically outlined the duty of the state with
regard to ensuring that education is physically
accessible to children. Section 6 of The Right
to Children to Free and Compulsory Primary
Education Act, 2009 provides:

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

For carrying out the provisions of this Act the
appropriate Government and local authority
shall establish, within such area or limits of
neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school,
where it is not established, within 3 years of the
commencement of this Act
Section 7 (1) further provides that: The Central
Government and the State Government shall have
concurrent responsibility for providing funds for
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
This is further re-affirmed under section 8 (a)
that defines compulsory education to mean the
obligation of the appropriate Government to
ensure the availability of neighbourhood schools.
It is therefore evident that for compulsory primary
education to be a reality in Kenya both the
central and local governments must assume clear
responsibilities in ensuring physical accessibility.
Indicators of this commitment include making
land and budgetary resources available for
construction of public primary schools in the
urban informal settlements where the majority

of the most vulnerable groups stay. Failure of

government or the local authorities to do so is a
violation of the right to education. Where children
are forced to walk several miles to reach a public
school, or where physical infrastructure like
proper roads are unavailable or security is not
assured, the right to education is compromised.
The result is that children in these settlements are
prevented from attending primary school because
the institutions are not within their reach or there
is inadequate security. The Government and local
authorities must therefore develop and implement
programmes targeted at particularly vulnerable
children to ensure that they attend school.
It is for this reason that the Urban Slums Basic
Education Campaign (USBEC) sent a public
petition to the Mayor of Nairobi seeking his
intervention to ensure that land is made available to
ensure the construction of easily accessible public
primary schools, especially in the urban informal
settlements. The Central Government must also
ensure that adequate budgetary provisions are
made available for the construction of schools in
informal settlements.

Where children are forced to walk several miles to reach a public school, the right to education is compromised

10

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

BUDGETARY ALLOCATION
PATTERN
for Basic Education in Urban Slums
By Christine Wambugu,
Program Officer Right to Housing, Hakijamii

The education sector in Kenya has undergone

several major reforms, with the key one being the
launch and implementation of FPE in January 2003.
Following its inception, an estimated 1.5 million
children, who were previously out of school, had
turned up to attend classes by the end of 2009.
FPE strives to provide basic quality education to
enhance Kenyans ability to preserve and utilize
the environment for productive and sustainable
livelihoods, to develop the quality of the human
race, to realize universal access to education and
training for all, including the disadvantaged and
vulnerable and to serve as a necessary tool for
the development and protection of the democratic
institutions of human rights.
In spite of the Governments commitment to the
provision of universal free primary education to
all children of school-going age, FPE continues
to experience many challenges. These include:
overstretched facilities; overcrowding in schools,
especially those in urban slums; high pupilteacher ratios (PTRs) in densely populated areas;
lack of special equipment for children with
special needs; diminished community support
following their misconstrued role vis--vis that of
the Government under the FPE initiative; gender
and regional disparities; increased number of
orphans in and out of school as a result of HIV/
AIDS; internal inefficiencies and poor resource
management in primary schools; inadequate
in-service training of teachers, poor sanitation
facilities, gender insensitive environments, and
inadequacies in quality assurance. Though most
of these challenges exist in public primary schools
located throughout the country, they are worse in
institutions located in the informal settlements.

Education Financing

In order to find out the countrys budgetary

allocation pattern for basic education in urban
slums, with a focus on the 2006/07, 2007/08 and
2008/09 financial years, the Economic and Social
Rights Centre (Hakijamii) conducted a study to
identify the budgetary patterns and implications.
The research was carried out through collection of
relevant data from the line ministries, specifically,
the Ministry of Education. Other government
departments visited include, inter alia; Nairobi
City Councils Department of Education and
resource centers at the Ministries of Education
(Basic Education Section), Planning & National
Development and Finance.
According to the study, FPE is offered in
partnership with various stakeholders, each of
whom has a specific role to play. The Government
of Kenya in collaboration with development
agencies provides teachers and critical learning
materials and operational expenses for all children
enrolled in primary schools. The parents, on the
other hand, are expected to provide examination
fees for Standard 8 pupils, school uniforms,
school meals, boarding facilities, health care
and transport to and from school. The program
also allows for community initiatives in the
maintenance and development of facilities and
services that are not funded under FPE. Schools
are only allowed to collect extra levies after
written authority has been granted from the
Ministry of Education. Even then, no child should
be sent home due to non-payment of extra levies.
However, many schools still collect fees and/or
levies skillfully from parents for their survival.
The FPE fund comprises an allocation of Ksh 1,020
per child per annum. Since the inception of FPE,
schools have been receiving funds directly into
their bank accounts through electronic transfer
funds (ETF) from the Ministry of Education.
Schools maintain two bank accounts, namely;
the School Instructional Materials Bank Account
(SIMBA) whose funds are used for the purchase
of instructional materials and the General Purpose
Account (GPA) for meeting operational expenses.

11

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
within the FPE budget context
By Christine Wambugu,
Program Officer Right to Housing, Hakijamii

he education sector resource requirements

are guided by the sector policy commitments
articulated in Sessional Paper No. 1 of
2005 and the Kenya Education Sector Support
Programme (KESSP). The Sessional Paper
provides public investment programmes and
other development activities for the education and
training sector, within the context of overall sector
spending projections covering all operating costs
of the education sector. These are in tandem with
the national sector goals of attainment of Education
for All (EFA), Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) and the Economic Recovery Strategy for
Wealth and Employment Creation (ERSWEC).
The education sector has been one of the top
consumers of the national budget over the years.
Among its sub-sectors, primary education has
been receiving the highest allocation since
the introduction of FPE in 2003. In 2007/08,
17.3% of the national budget was allocated to
the sector, and it was expected to cater for the
subsidization of primary education, hiring of
11,000 more teachers, increased teacher salaries
and secondary school tuition subsidies according
to the Finance Ministers 2007/08 Budget speech.
The allocation was estimated to comprise over
20% of total public spending in the 2008/09.

12

Children living in informal settlements have limited

access to education in public schools

FREE PRIMARY
EDUCATION

in formal and informal

areas of Nairobi

By Christine Wambugu,
Program Officer Right to Housing, Hakijamii

ccording to a study conducted by

the Education Research Program of
the African Population and Health
Research Centre (APHRC), even among the
poorest of the poor in Kenya, it is the betteroff families that take their children to public
primary schools where free education is
offered. Statistics show that 74% of families
living in the relatively low-income formal
settlements enroll their children in public
primary schools compared to 52% of families
living in the informal settlements. Even
within the informal settlements, it is the
better-off families that are more likely to send
their children to public schools. For instance,
among the poorest slum families, only 54%
have children in public schools, whereas 61%
of the richest slum families have children in
public schools. This means that children living
in these settlements have very limited access
to public primary education.
Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

Thus poorer families are enrolling their children
in fee-charging non-public schools compared to
relatively richer families. Due to this fact, many
non-public schools have emerged in slums to fill
the gap. These children attend the non-formal/nonpublic or informal schools, which are basically
supported by communities, religious groups and
other organizations. Such schools charge minimal
fees and use the national curriculum taught
in public schools, but they lack basic learning
facilities. The presence of informal schools means
that there are two levels of education: one for
children from the slums, and another for children
from better-off families.
There are very few public schools within and near
informal settlements. For instance, there are three
public primary schools in Kibera, these being
Ayany Primary School, which has a population
of 1,753 and 27 teachers, Kibera Primary School
which has 2,253 students and 33 teachers while
the largest school is Olympic Primary School
with 2,605 students and 33 teachers. In Mukuru
Kayaba there are three schools with a total of 4,500
children. The percentage of boys to girls going to
school is about 50/50 in the lower primary classes.
In Mathare, there are three public primary schools
nearby. These can serve 2,000 children at most.
The slum itself has more than 300,000 children of
school-going age.
In the slum areas, there has been a lot of resistance
from teachers and head teachers against transfers
to schools in informal settlements, citing security
concerns and inability of parents in the informal
areas to pay for private tuition after the normal
school hours, which usually serves as an extra
income for the teachers.
On the other hand, there are relatively wellequipped primary schools in Nairobi, for
example, those that were historically established
for Europeans and Asians before Kenyas
independence. These schools have facilities such
Education Financing

as libraries, swimming pools, halls and school

buses, which are not common in other schools,
and used to collect high tuition fees. Children
have to wear rather expensive school uniforms
and shoes. Consequently, even if categorized as
a public primary school, only children from
relatively wealthy families can afford to enrol.
In such schools, free primary education is not
really free as they actually charge some levies or
fees. This is because it is difficult for such costly
primary schools to maintain existing facilities
merely using grants from the government.
In the FPE program, parents still cater for
expenses such as uniform, lunch and transport.
This illustrates the fact that despite being free,
education it is still very expensive and many
parents still cannot afford to send their children
to a good public primary school.
In response to the challenges facing FPE, the
Kenya Education Sector Strategic Plan (KESSP)
was established to help the Government achieve
a number of targets as outlined in Sessional
Paper No. 1 of 2005. Two specific targets are
relevant to this study: to enhance access, equity
and quality in primary and secondary education
through capacity building of 45,000 education
managers by 2005 and to construct/renovate
physical facilities/equipment in public learning
institutions in disadvantaged areas, particularly
in arid and semi-arid lands (ASALS) and urban
slums by 2008.
From the research, girls enrolment in public
primary schools in the years under review has been
consistently higher than that of boys. However, the
difference is marginal. From a gender budgeting
dimension, more girls accessed, participated in
and therefore benefited from public-subsidized
education at the primary level. Although this may
not be significant at this level, its effects begin
to show in parity indices at higher educational
levels, especially the secondary school one.

13

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
to Nairobi Primary chools
By Christine Wambugu,

ata from Nairobi City Councils Education

Department gives the following figures as
received and spent in the citys schools,
disaggregated for the different broad vote-heads;

The 2007/08 FY shows huge variances between

what was allocated vis--vis what was spent, both
for the GPA and the SIMBA budget allocations.
Unfortunately, the percentage variance seems
to increase as the years under review progress.
Secondly, variances on the GPA account record
a greater degree of variance as compared to
the SIMBA one. There is a downward trend in
utilization of money meant for administrative
purposes.

Table 1: SIMBA Account Allocation

Financials (Ksh)
Financial
year

Total
received

Total
spent

% of
variance

2006/07

125,746,858.00

118,334,879.00

2007/08

60,234,300.00

28,001,771.00

47

32,232,529.00

2008/09

70,942,900.00

1,488,892.00

97

69,454,008.00

Balance
7,411,979.00

Table 2: General Purpose Account Allocation

Financial
year
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09

Financials (Ksh)
Total
received
73,389,451.00
74,631,405.00
-

Total
spent
65,819,652.00
19,590,313.00
-

% of
variance
10
74
-

On the whole, money allocated for schools

instructional materials was generally higher than
that allocated for general purposes as illustrated
in the graph below.
Comparison between GPA and SIMBA allocations
140
120
100
80

GPA

60

SIMBA

Balance

Across the three years, the

allocation to school instruction
materials was consistently
higher than that of the general
purposes account apart from
FY 2007/08. This means that
the bulk of the allocation went
into support of direct learning
materials as compared to
administrative costs.
Required measures

7,569,799.00
55,041,092.00
-

The government should build

more public primary schools
in informal settlements to
reduce the high incidences of low access and
participation in basic education, have a budgetary
component directly earmarking support for nonformal schools in the slums as an interim strategy
to mitigate high incidences of poor access to
schooling by children who have attained schoolgoing age, due to the deterrence of high school
fees and also provide incentives to private primary
schools in the slums to encourage them to lower
the fees charged to students.

40
20
Allocation
(Millions)
0
2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Financial Year

Fig 1: Comparison between GPA and SIMBA allocations

However, there is a sharp decline in both of

these allocations between FY 2006/07 and FY
2007/2008. For instance, the allocation to SIMBA
declined by a record 53% for the period between
FY 2006/07 and 2007/08. This was a massive
decrease considering the fact that the enrolment
of pupils in public primary schools actually
increased by 2,636 pupils.

14

There should be greater participation of civil

society organizations (CSOs), especially those
involved in advocacy of the rights and entitlements
of slum dwellers, in the budget making process.
This will capture the realities on the ground in the
slum areas and have meaningful interventional
measures reflected in the budget in terms of
allocation to components that have a direct
implication on the slum dwellers.

Education Financing

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

VOICES FROM THE GRASSROOT

Answer: The Government should seriously
monitor disbursement and use of the funds by
engaging an independent firm. This will ensure
transparent use of the funds.

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN KEN OPIYO

OYOO, CHAIRMAN OF KUTOKA
NETWORK, EMBAKASI CONSTITUENCY
Question: What do you consider as the
greatest achievement of the free primary
education program?
Answer: The greatest achievement so far is that
enrolment of children, especially from poor
families, has greatly increased.
Question: Do you think the Government is
serious about fighting corruption in the use of
FPE funds?
Answer: Since the Government officials took
action by suspending officials, especially
the Permanent Secretaries charged with this
responsibility, it is partly serious. But it should
have also have taken action against the Minister
in charge to demonstrate its commitment to
fighting corruption in the Ministry.
Question: What other measures do you think
the government should undertake to ensure
that the funds are properly used?
Education Financing

Question: What are the tangible results for

FPE for children in informal settlements?
Answer: In the informal settlements, most
children have been able to go to school despite
many challenges. These are children who face
a lot of challenges including lack of sufficient
food, poor sanitation, shelter and lack of access
to health care, but they are still determined to
go to school, especially after the introduction of
FPE. In fact, some of them have attained very
good grades in the national examinations.
Question: Are you, as community members
and parents, involved in how the free primary
education funds are utilized?
Answer: Some of the community members
and parents are members of the Parents and
Teachers Association (PTA), both in the
informal schools and formal ones. The SIMBA
Account which is meant for the disbursement of
the funds is managed by three people, that is, the
PTA chairperson, the secretary (head teacher)
and the treasurer, who are answerable to the
community.
Question: Are you aware of how much money
is allocated to each child under the FPE?
Answer: I can only say that this varies from year
to year. I remember one time when I was in the
PTA, the Government was allocating about Ksh
1070 per child per year. That was between 2003
and 2005.
Question: Are you satisfied with how the
funds are used?

15

EDUCATION RIGHTS UPDATE

VOICES FROM THE GRASSROOT

I recall when I was in school sometime back in the

mid-sixties and seventies, the then Government
introduced the Kenya Schools Equipments
Scheme. This was given to independent people to
run until 1978 when a new Government was put
in place and everything was ruined.
Question: What additional measures do you
think should be put in place to ensure more
accountability and transparency in the use of
the funds?
Answer: Possible measures that can be put
into place to ensure more accountability and
transparency in the use of the funds are:
Periodic audit by the PTA and the community
at large
Prosecution of those who misappropriate the
funds.
Question: Reports indicate that most of the
poor families do not send their children to
public primary schools, but instead send them
to private informal schools. Why is this so?
Answer: The reasons for the poor sending their
children to private informal schools other than
public primary schools are:
Teachers in the public primary schools have
relaxed since the implementation of the
free primary education and are no longer
committed to their work
The private informal schools tend to have
better learning facilities than the public ones
Most of the private informal schools are

funded by donors so they cater for orphans

and other vulnerable children
Tuition lessons being offered by the public
schools are not adequate since the same
teachers have their own private ones outside
the schools.

Question: Are community groups adequately

organized to monitor the use of FPE?
Answer: Community groups depend too much on
the reports by the PTA and are thus not adequately
organized to monitor the disbursement and the
use of the funds.
Question: What kind of assistance would the
community require to promote effectiveness in
monitoring of the funds?
Answer: The kind of assistance required would
include:
A lot of civic education on matters relating
to the funds
The Government to form FPE committees
within the larger community just as they have
done for the other devolved funds.
Publication of pamphlets regarding free
primary education and releasing them to the
public.

HAKIJAMII
Economic and Social Rights Centre
Golfcourse Commercial Centre
Kenyatta Market, Nairobi
P O Box 11356, 00100 Nairobi
Tel: +254 (0) 20 2731667
Fax: +254 (0)20 2726023
Email: esrc@hakijamii.com
Web: www.hakijamii.org/kenya

Published by Hakijamii with support of Concern Worldwide (Kenya)

Design: Peter Wambu

Answer: Given that the funds are being

misappropriated by employees of the same
Government, I am not satisfied. I will only be
fully satisfied when the Government engages
independent firms to monitor utilization of the
funds.