2016/7/6

1

This presentation explores the issue under focus under thefollowing themes:
1. Background and Context
2. Socio-economic context of urban slums in Kenya
3. Features of Kenya’s informal settlements and provision ofbasic education
4. Policies in the provision of Basic Ed. in Urban Informal
Settlements (UISs)
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
6. Issues for further reflection/interrogation21

2016/7/6

Background and context• Kenya has made tremendous efforts to provide equal
education opportunities to all its citizens as a govt
obligation and partly in pursuit of EFA and MDGs
• However, underneath these impressive statistics, there
are many children throughout the country who fail toaccess basic education for a variety of reasons• These include: children of nomadic pastoralists,children with special needs, children in urban informal
settlements, street children, abandoned and neglectedchildren, orphans, displaced and refugee children, HIV
and AIDS affected children including orphans …e.t.c.
3

Background…2• This presentation is a systematic analysis of
educational policies to increase the provision of basic
education to the particular group of children inurban informal settlements in cities of Nairobi,Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru and Eldoret• It reviews such policies and associated practices withregard to the sense in which they have partly playeda push factor role that has left the urban poor
children in UISs with the option of utilizing thealleged ‘low cost’ private education despite theexistence of FPE policy which, as argued in thispresentation, only serves to marginalize them further.
42

2016/7/6

Socio-economic context of urban slums inKenya• Historically, Africans were barred, by policy, from thecity’s designated residential areas• therefore, for Africans who came to Nairobi, they
developed an informal settlement in the low-lying
areas of the city - temporal shelter for low-level factory
workers, retirees, single families, poor people andyoung men looking for employment.
• the growth of informal settlements in other cities andmajor towns in Kenya such Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru
and Eldoret has been influenced by nearly these same
factors e.g. industrialization, population growth, urban
centre growth, land tenure system and high land prices
and house rents
5

Socio-economic …2• For Nairobi, city’s 1948 Master Plan and other majorurban development plans continued to neglect informalsettlements (e.g. 1963, 1st govt declared this settlement– Kibera- illegal and so are others)• Unfortunately, this continues despite 2 million people in
Nairobi living in informal settlements (60% of city’s ppln)• thus, from the onset, African residential areas wereconceived of from a position of disadvantage withlimited infrastructure, general amenities, poor schools (ifany) and a general lack of resources
NBdespite modifications done in favor of city’s African popln,
it is still almost as it was in the past63

2016/7/6

Features of Kenya’s informal settlements andprovision of basic education• Non-formal Schools present a formidable constituency in
the Provision of basic education in urban informal
settlements yet most are not recognized by thegovernment (in Kisumu & Nairobi, nearly 60% live in UISs.
• A significant number of children in the urban informal
settlements are excluded from quality pre-school
education which compromises their chances for furtherformal schooling.
• Access to Primary Education is far below the national
average and many children are out of school in theinformal settlements• While integration of children with disabilities in theformal school system is a policy, non-formal schools in
the informal urban settlements rarely do this.
7Features 2• Access to secondary schooling as a basic education
cycle is limited in the urban informal settlements• The quality of education offered in Private/NFS ismarkedly poorer than that of the public school• Non-formal schools are sustained by fees paid byparents, and the impact of government capitation forthese schools is yet to be felt
• Most Non-Formal schools are registered with theMinistry of Gender, Children and Social Services aslocal organizations or charitable institutions.
• Higher % of children in slums attend “ low-cost” private
schools e.g. Allavida 2012: Kibera-52% attend these –due to higher poverty index in slums

84

2016/7/6

Table: Non Formal Schools’ Enrolment by Level of Education 2004
Province

Primary

SecondaryTotalMFMF
Coast2240
1813
370
369
4792Central247
159
166
18590
Eastern
71
84212169Nairobi
36456
35959
3645
431
76491
R. Valley
504
470
974
Western
602
532
673
1807
Nyanza
1050
945
205
71
2271
N. Eastern
1413
738
545
189
2885
Sub Total
42583
40700
5610
1096
89989
Total
83283
6706
89989
Source: MoEST, NFS, Directory and National Summaries
9

Table Number of Non Formal Institutions, Enrolment and Teachers, November 2007
ProvinceInstitutions No. Enrolment No.
Girls Boys
Coast
251
4985 5405
Central
83643 643
Eastern
101
789 758
Nairobi
640
46830 44167
R. Valley 79
1642 2804
Western 18875 1298
Nyanza1332405 2907
N. Eastern 90
1661 3320
Total
1395
59830 61555

Source: UNICEF’S Directory of NFE in Kenya

Total
10390
1539
1547
90997
4446
2173
5312
4981
121385Teachers
Trained Untrained
337
661
73
170
110
171
2024
3904
416
697
78
114
388
661
131
310
3557
6688

Total
998
243
281
5928
1113
192
1049
441
10245
105

2016/7/6

Policies in the provision of Basic Ed. in UISs

1. 1978 Sessional paper No. 5 on “Educational Objectives andPolicies” – post school training in skills – yet many had noaccess to basic ed (so NFE not aligned to FE - no easytransition & NFE perceived as inferior)
2. 1980s implementation of SAPs – dwindling participation –reduced govt funding hence cost-sharing ( model – eroded
gains by efforts towards UPE – esp. in poor households e.g. inslums most affected by dropout pushing them to informality(more establishmet of private schools)• Slums provided opportunity for entrepreneurs to start
providing services including ed (given the little govtsupport) and to date – slums have matured to becommercial targets of international ed. Providers e.g.
Bridge International (May 2015, 119 organisations (17 from Kenya) released ajoint statement to denounced World Bank funding to the chain of low-fee privateschools Bridge International Academies who charge $6 per child/term cf KES.$10perchild/year in public primary funded by FPE).

11Policies …2

3. In the year 2003 govt introduced FPE policy – 1.3M outof estimated 3M children enrolled in public schools (witha significant number coming from NFE) most of whom
later dropped out – opportunity cost of being in school
was too high• FPE in 2003 and FDSE in 2008 - children in informal
urban settlement did not fully benefit from it – forreasons including unavailability of public schools within
their reach.
• As a result,① the few schools in slums urban informal settlements
witnessed absenteeism, repetition and drop-out rates② large numbers of children in slums enrolled in
privately-owned low cost primary schools that did notreceive FPE grants with many remaining out of school(hence another instance of dev of more private schs.

126

2016/7/6

Policies…3Studies done:• in 2003 - a total of 76 private primary and sec in Kibera cf lessthan 5 public primary schools located on periphery• Oketch et. al 2010 - in slums in 2 slums in Nairobi revealed
that 44% of the sampled children attended poor quality feecharging private schools.
• Dixon and Tooley 2007 – private sch. increased to 116 (52%)
in 4yrs• House Survey in Mathare – 26 private primary Vs 1 public• According to MoE-EMIS - despite FPE, 759,090 children (boys351,277, girls 407, 813) were out of the formal school systemin 2010 and that this was acute in slums and ASAL regions.
• * despite FPE - access still low in UISs -hist. of neglect + policy
13Policies…34. The Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2005

Purpose:to address challenges relating to access, equity, quality,relevance, efficiency in the management of educational
resources, cost and financing of education, gender andregional disparities, and teacher quality and teacher
utilization and consequently provide a policy
framework for the education and training sector inorder to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

147

2016/7/6

Policies…4As a result:• NFE centres, offering formal curriculum
registered with MoES&T to be legible forgovernment support to non-formal schools uponcompliance for accountability (2008/2009, 474 schls gotgrants with 600 schools targeted in 2009/2010 Financial Year).
• Despite this, the enrolment into NFE/NFS, theyear 2010 recorded a gap of 156,591 learners as
the government had targeted 300,000 yet only
143 409 enrolled.
• 8000 public ECDE centers received Community
Support Grants benefiting 251,839 children (onlythose attached to public primary schools)
15Policies…5• Looking at this funding proposal, and considering that the bulkof the 1.5 children not in the public school but are in these NFSs,
rough calculations gives a figure less than half of the KES. 1020
per child in FPE – yet these are schools that are worse off –hence alienates the children in these schs further.
5. The Kenyan Constitution 2010 and the Basic Education Act of2013 have also guided the provision and support of education inUISs.
• The Basic Education Act recognizes 2 types of basic educational
institutions: public schools (established/owned or operated bythe Govt AND private schools (established/owned or operated
by private individuals, entrepreneurs and institutions
1682016/7/6

Policies…6• the APBET policy creates de facto another type of school, the“alternative” or “non-formal” schools, which are private defining
them as “institutions that resemble formal schools in that they aim
at transmitting a formalized curriculum leading to formal school
examinations but which differ in school practices, management,
financing, staffing conditions, registration, operating environmentand school structures.”• This may imply govt tolerance to what facilities, financial dynamics
and environ in which they operate (inferior?)• Despite these, most of Kenya’s marginal populations, continue to be
marginalized even in terms of basic education and where this isavailable, it is often of poor quality with lack of transition
mechanisms and an uncoordinated large number of providers.

• Such schs. have little interest to enrol marginalised groups who
require extra support e.g. children with disabilities, unlesscompelled through adequately enforced regulation (see Allavida

2012, in a public sch. children with disability (11%) while in all the NFs in thearea, they constituted (less than 1%) .
17Policies…7

6. National Education Sector Plan (NESP) 2013-2018 ( an allinclusive, sector-wide programme)• Goal: Quality Basic Education for Kenya's SustainableDevelopment.
• However:① No stated commitment to provision of infrastructure andfacilities that will accommodate this expected increase inAPBET enrolment② No transition mechanism to enable the children in these
institutions, later, join the formal system (NESP appears towant to maintain them instead of eventuallymainstreaming them to the formal ed.system.
③ Govt support excludes facilities and infrastructure
In this way, the policy continues to marginalize them insteadof mainstreaming them to the formal schooling system.
189

2016/7/6

Conclusions and Suggestions• UISs lack recognition by govt as legitimate residential areas - lack supply
of a range of essential services e.g. govt schools hence higher proportionof children attend low quality owned by non-state providers with theirown commercial interests.
• Policies enacted for ed. in slums have not been particularly sensitive totheir needs – necessitate utilization of the alleged low-cost private
education despite existence of FPE policy to universalize education.
• this has produced a parallel ed. system justified as suitable for slumchildren due to lack of financial capacity thus further marginalizing thealready marginalized poor in the slums.
• With the lack of adequate regulation and enforcement of education
standards by the govt, urban poor children continue to be exploited by
non-state entrepreneurs who take advantage of the void created by govt
inadequacy in providing educ. for the urban poor.
• Calling for low-cost schls to stand as an alternative advances the legalityof a dual education system that stratifies society according to socioeconomic strata thereby promoting a system that legitimizes inequality
19
hence marginalization.

Suggestions• A strategic starting point - govt to enforce registrationof all NFSs and then move on to consider them forcapitation and technical support to enable themprovide quality education.
• Govt to coordinate support by the private organizations
to be strictly driven by the needs of the specific groupof children in focus OR else channel the support to govt
through a pooled mechanism so as to play this roleeffectively.
• Step up possible ways of improving the quality
assurance mechanisms both in government schools
and the so-called low-cost private schools in informal
settlements as well.
2010

2016/7/6

Otherwise!
the kind of exclusion depicted by the manner in which
education provision in UISs is conducted must be
addressed before there emerges a more inferior,parallel and inequitable system of education that
continues to marginalize the seemingly alreadymarginalized children in an irreversible manner.

21Issues for further reflection/interrogation• Does NFE foster different kind of learning or is an alternative
channel to formal education (if it should lead to formal ed. thenthe curriculum should be common rather than alternative ormodified version of the formal curriculum).
• Why would private school chains, such as Bridge International
Academies, be registered as non-formal schools, whereas they
appear to offer formal education? Isn’t the govt promoting
informality?
• If the govt intends to progressively replace non-formal
education by formal quality free education, why does it
continuously support non-formal schools without a plan to leadto formalisation? In any case the govt has never shared anyplans to phase out non-formal education including how thisintention is materialised in policies.
2211

2016/7/6

Issues… 2• Why would informality be made a permanent feature of
educational provision for the poor in devg countries by
the World Bank when every effort needed to be made totransit such populations to the formal sector if equity has
to be achieved?
• Why would the World Bank spend more money in this
sector than it would need to provide education within
formal arrangements?
• Govt priorities - projects on education appear to be such
elitist e.g.the laptop project - not a priority to learners inslums – why would a govt under-prioritize the needs ofthe underserved children in UISs- (for me: this only serves towiden the already existing disparities hence marginalisation of theurban poor in slums).

232412