MALINI SIVASUBRAMANIAMUNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Social Capital and parental decision making structures: Evidence from Low-Fee Private schools in Kibera, Kenya

Globalization, Regionalization and Privatization in and of education in Africa Regional conference12 October 2012

OVERVIEW

Research background, purpose and contextLow-cost schools in KenyaMethodologyResults Concluding Thoughts

Low-cost private schools in Kenya

Definitional debate around LFPS

Up to 40% of children are enrolled in these private low-fee schools (Oketch, 2007).

Registered with Ministry of Social Services. (MGSCSS)

Registered as CBO not private schools

2 rounds of textbook funding from Ministry of Education

Statement of Problem

Conundrum in Kenya. FPE 2003 but increasing numbers of LFPS.

Yet, not all households in slums have their children in LFPS. Speculate that family and community social capital variables may influence parental decision-making structures.

Questions: Why are households choosing LFP schools over public schools and what are the meaningful financial, human, family, spiritual -and community level social capital predictor variables that differentiated between families with children in public and low-fee private schools?

Conceptual Framework for study

Social Capital conceptual Framework

Draws on Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s conceptualizations of social capital.

Social capital survey adapted from Ferguson (2002)

Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s Capitals Operationalized as Indicators usedCultural Capital Human Capital 1) Mother’s educational level

2) Father’s educational level3) Child’s current school status (if

enrolled in correct class level for age)

Social Capital Family Capital 1) Family structure2) Quality of parent-child relationship3) Adult’s interest in child4) Parent’s monitoring of child’s activities5) Degree of extended family exchange

and supportCommunity Capital Community Capital 1) Perception of the quality of the

neighbourhood2) Social support networks3) Civic engagement4) Trust and safety5) Group membership6) School satisfaction7) School choice processes

Spiritual Capital Spiritual Capital 1) Degree of religiosity2) Level of church or spiritual community

involvement3) Church membership4) Identified religion5) Level of church or spiritual community

activities involvementEconomic Capital Financial Capital 1) Total household income

2) Public assistance3) Kin financial help4) Financial support networks5) Economic hardship6) Perceived financial need7) School-related expenses

Methodology

Research Site: One district in the slum of KiberaSchools: Area Cluster Sampling of 5 schoolsSampling of households: Those with children in Class 6

and 7 in each of the schools and closest place of residence to the school.

Sample size: 100 (LFP schools), 109 (public school) N=209

Survey and in-depth interviews

Government School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4Year established 1953 1994 1998 2000 1994Number of years in present premise* 54 8 8 7 13Category of school type Public Individual

proprietorCommunity-based/INGO

INGO Faith-based

Partners None None First love, USA Childlife international, Netherlands

Survival Ministries, Anglican Church of Kenya

Registered with City Council of Nairobi

Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services

Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services

Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services

Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services

Grades offered 1-8 Nursery, 1-6 1-8 1-7 1-8Reported total enrolment 2233 135 341 548 265Teacher-student ratio 1:67 1:22 1:24 1:45 1:26Number of trained teachers 33 0 11 9 5Number of support staff 6 2 5 11 3Fee collected/month(Ksh) 50 150 300 none 150Fee concessions No Yes Yes Yes YesSponsored pupils 0 0 4 0 0Reported no. of free and concessionary places

26 4 10 All 10

Number of Classrooms 36 7 11 9 5Water Yes No Yes Yes YesElectricity Yes No Yes Yes NoNumber of toilets 20 3 16 5 4Playground Yes No Yes No NoSchool feeding program Yes, World

Feeding Program and Feed the children

YES, Feed the Children

Yes, World Food Program and First Love, USA

Yes, World Food Program

Yes, World Food Program

Math textbook ratio in Class 1 1:2 1:19 1:4 1:6 1:3Math textbook ratio in Class 7 1:1 1:6^ 1:3 1:4 1:2Textbook funding received from Ministry

Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Classroom construction material Brick, concrete floors

Mud-walled, dirt floor

Brick Part brick/part mud-walled

Mud-walled, dirt floor

Table XXXX Summary of Focus School profiles

Descriptive Demographic Data for the Households in the study

Public School Households 51.4% of children in the correct

class for age

Higher percentage of Muslim HH (29%)

Tend to be longer term residents of Kibera (< 5 yrs 11%)

More dual parent households (73%)

Mothers with no education or primary incomplete (35%), Fathers (21%)

Mothers employed at home (63%), full-time (6%)

LFPS Households 26% of children in correct class

for age

Only 10% Muslim HH

Tend to be more recent migrants to Kibera (< 5 years 28%)

Fewer Dual Parent Households (60%)

Mothers with no education or primary incomplete (52%), Fathers (31%)

Mothers employed at home (40%), full-time (13%)

Comparing Household Social Capital: What does the data tell us?

1. Spiritual Capital : LFPS HH tend to have higher religious community attendance (Х2= 5.02, p ≤ 0.05).

2. Human Capital : children in LFPS were more likely to have mothers with no education/primary incomplete (Х2=15.21, p≤ 0.01) than children in public schools. More in the incorrect class for their age in LFPS (Х2=14.09, p≤ 0.001)

3. Financial Capital: Public School HHs reported more financial trouble (M=2.08, p≤ 0.01 )  and worry ( M= 1.79, p≤ 0.05) than HHs in LFPS.

Financial Capital: HHs with children in LFPS reported higher total school expenditure than those with children in PS (Х2= 22.47, p≤ 0.01). LFPS HHs fewer financial networks to rely on to help pay bills and with expenses (Х2= 10.41 , p≤ 0.01).

Family Social Capital: PS HH report to giving more verbal encouragement, but LFPS HH report as having more shared activities. More PS HHs had mothers who worked at home (Х2= 10.71, p≤ 0.05). HH in PS were longer term residents than LFPS (Х2= 23.30, p≤ 0.001). Ethnicity significant with more Nubian parents in PS than in LFP school (Х2= 13.20, p≤ 0.05).

Community Social Capital: None of seven indicators significant.

Profile of HHs based on study findings

Public Fewer mothers with no ed

or primary incomplete More financial trouble and

worry More verbal

encouragement Longer term Kibera

residents More HHs of Nubian

ethnicity More mothers who worked

at home

LFP Higher number of mothers

with no ed or primary incomplete.

Higher religious community attendance

Higher number of pupils in incorrect class for age

Higher school expenditure Fewer financial networks to

draw upon More shared activities with

children Mothers tend to work outside

the home

Public(N= 109) LFP (N=100)

Reasons for choice % %I.Practical considerations (total)(i) safe(ii) Proximity(iii) Feeding program(iv) Other siblings in the school

(40.9)1.129.01.19.7

(25.1)1.116.04.04.0

II. Access(total)(i)Availability of space(ii)Easier admission

(20.4)16.14.3

(17.0)12.05.0

III.School quality(total)(i)Good discipline(ii)Good teaching(iii)Higher academic standards(iv)Good performance record(v)Smaller class sizes

(20.4)0.03.214.03.20.0

(46)3.07.021.0123.0

IV. Financial considerations(total)(i)Fee concessions(ii)Affordability(iii)Child sponsorship(iv)Flexible fee payment(v) FPE(vi) School offerd assistance

(65.6)1.129.00.00.035.50.0

(59.0)5.035.03.07.00.09.0

V. Community Social Capital(total)(i)Parent former pupil(ii)Other people recommended(iii) Attend community group here(iv)Teacher/Staff is a friend(v) School is community-based(vi)School supportive of HIV AIDS parents(vii)Neighbour’s child enrolled here(viii)Teacher/staff understanding

(13.0)8.60.00.01.12.20.00.01.1

(31.0)0.010.04.04.00.02.07.04.0

VI. Peripheral Reasons(total)(i)Child selected(ii)No particular reason

(4.2)1.03.2

(6.0)1.05.0

Comparing ranked relative importance of reasons given by public and LFP school households for choosing their current school

Public school households1. Financial considerations2. Practical considerations3. Access4. School Quality5. Community Social Capital6. Peripheral Considerations

LFP households1. Financial considerations2. School Quality3. Community Social Capital4. Practical considerations5. Access6. Peripheral considerations

Some Concluding Thoughts

Clear differentiation along certain social capital variables between the two groups of households.

Decision-Making is an shaped by HH SC but not all households able to exercise the ability to choose.

In many cases, households are pushed into a choice by their inability to access their first choice esp. public schools because of lack of space or cost. Also evidence of schools choosing.

Emergence of what can be described as three kinds of choosers of LFPS: Default, Strategic and Active