THE FINANC:AL IM?LICATIONS OF

PROGRAMMAT:C CHANGES IN KENYA'S

EDUCATION SYSTEM, 1990 - 2000

A study commissioned by the World Bank in collaboration with the Ministry of Education. The contribution of the Canadian Agency for Incernat10nal Development (CIDA) to the funding of this project is gratefully acknowledged.

July 1989

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881Typewritten Text52740

TABLE Q.E C""NIEHTS

:::XECUTIVE SUMMARY

I :NTRODUCTION

3a.ckground .•••.............................•... 1 - 2

7rends in the composition of GOK Costs on Education .•.....••....•...•........••. 2 - 8

GOK P14nned Leve1s and Composition of Expenditure on Education ................... . 8 - 11

Current and P1anned GOK Expenditure per Studen t . ., ................ ,..,.,. .. ,. .... ,.,.,. ..... ,. 12 - 15

II P~IVATE AND COMMUNITY FINANCING OF EDUCATION

In troduc t ion ,..,..,. .... ,.,. .... ",. .. ,. ........ ",. ....... . 16 - 32

Pre-Primarv Education ......................... . 16 - 19

Primary Education 19 - 23

Secondary Education 24 - 27

Vocationa1 & Technica1 Education ....•.....•.... 28

University Education 29 - 30

Summary of the Findings 31 - 32

III THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMMATIC

CllANGES

Introduction ..................••.......•....... 33 - 55

L Trends in the Composit~~n o! GOK ?ecurrent !xpendit~~e. 197..1.-1988 ............................................. .

2. Composition of the MOE 1988/~9 Bu~get by Ca~egcry o!

Expendi ture ........................................... . 5

3. Expenditure on Teachers Salaries and Allowances as a

of Total Education Rec~rren~ Budg.~..................... 6

4. GOK Allocation of Education vevelc?ment Resources.

197£1,-1988 ................................•.............. 7

Planned Growth in Education Recu~rent Expendi~ure.

1990-92•.......•........................................ 9

6. Planned Development Expenditure o~ Education 1989-92

(As a Percentage of To~al Education Budget) ........... . 11

7. Planned Annual Percentage Growth ~Decline) 1n GOK Development Expenditure on Educat~on. 1990-19 ....•.....

8. Projected Student Enrolment. 1989-93.................... 12

9. Planned C~K Recurrent !xpenciture ?er Student,

1989 92................................................. 13

10. Planned GOK Developmen~ Cos~ per Student; 1989-92.. ..... 14

11. Planned GOK Recurrent and Develop~ent Expenditure per

Student, 1989-92........................................ 15

12. Annual Fees and charges in Rural ?re-Primary Units...... 18

13. Annual Cost of MOE Rec~mmended Text BOOKS in Primary

Schools. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

14. Composition of the Average Annual Costs per Pup·il for

Parents from Two Rural Districts........................ 22

15. Number of Classes and Enrolment in Secondary Schools

by Cate~Qry. 1988....................................... 25

16. Avera~e Annual Secondary School Fees and Charges bY

Expend1ture Item........................................ 26

17. Average Annual Recurrent Ex~endit~re per Student 1n

GOK Maintained secondary Schools :n 1983/Bu... ... ....... 27

18. Annual Fees and Charges (Recurren: Expenditure) per

Student 1n Technical E1ucation Institutions........ ..... 29

A~nua:' Rec_~ren: :OS:3 per Tra:~ee a: TTCs ........... . 30

2C. Summa~y of 30K 8~d P~:vate Expenditure per Student at :ne Var10u3 leve:'s of Educatio~

2:' . Summary of ?1na~=1al :mplicat1cns: Pre-Pr1mar:,

Education ........................ . 35

22. Summary of ?inar:c1al :mplicaticns: Primary Educat10n .... 37

23. Summary of Financial :mplicaticns: Secondary Education ..

2~. Summary of Financial :mplications: Vocational & Technical Educa-:1.on..................................... UlL

Summary of Financial Implications: University Education .. U7

26. Summary of F1nancial Implications: Teacher Trainin~ .....

27. Summary of Financ1al !mp11cations: All Levels of

Education. . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . • • . . . . • . • . . . • . • . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . 52

http:Educa-:1.on

.l.l.S.r .Qf: A,PPENCICES TABLES

Table

N;';:;Jber

A:". 1

A.l. 2

Al. 3

A.l. U

Ai. 5

Cf.APTE::C

A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2 . .!I.

CHAPTER

A3.1 A3.2

A3.3

A3.4

A3.6

A3.7

A3.B

Governme~t Expenditure on Education, 1963/6u 1987/88......................................... .

Trend in GOK Recurrent Expenditure on Education. 19i1-196:, .•..••.....•...•••... ........•.•....•...

Trend in GOK Development Expenditure on Education. 1974-1983 .•..•...•.••••••.•..•••..••.••••..••.•..

Planned Recurrent Expenditure on Education, 1989-1992. • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • • . • • . • . • • • . • • • • • • • . • . . •

Planned )evelopment Expenditure on Education, 1ge9-1992 .•••......•.•.••.•..•••..•.•••..•.•••..••

Z.

Itemised cost of Uniforms in Primary Schools •.... Fees and Charges per Pupil in Primary Schools •... Cost of Text BoOks as Recommended by MOE•.••....•. Secondary School Fees and Charges .••.............

.3

Cost Pro~ections: Pre-primary Education .... "..... . Cost Projections for Current Programmes Scenario: Primary :::ducation...••...•....•••.••••..•.•.••... Cost Projection for New Programmes Scenario: Primary :E:ducation ...............••••......•.....• Cost PrOjections for Current Programmes Scenario: Secondary Education ........•...••.••••...••.•.•.. Cost Projections for New Programmes Scenario: Secondar~ EdUCation ......•..................•.... Cost Projections for Current Programmes Scenario: Vocational & Technical Education •...•.... ~ ......• Cost Projections for New Programmes Scenario: Vocational & Technical Education ....•..•.....•... Cost ProJections for Current Programmes Scenario: Universi~Y Education •............•.•...••..•.•...

Page

63

6u

65

66

67

68 69 70 74

--

73 76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

8u

A3.8lb Developn:ent Costs ?rojectlor:::, 1990-2C:0 ...... 85

A3.9 COSe Pro2ections for New ?ro~~ammes Scenarlo:

Un1vers1 -:::,; Educat1on ......... . 86

A3.9(b) Development Costs ?rojection::. 1990 2C:0 ....... . 87

A3.10 Cos~ Project1ons for CurrenL ?rogrammes Scenar1o:

Teacher Tra1n1ng ................................ . 88

A3.11 Cost Project1ons for New Pro.~ammes Scenar~o:

Teachers Tra1n1ng............................... . 89

STATISTICAL TABLES

A4.1 Summary of GOK Draft Foward ?ecurrent 3udget.

1989-1992..•....•...•............................ 90

AlJ..2 Summary GOK Draft Foward Development B~dge~.

1989-1992.••...•..•...•...••..••...••............ 91

CURf~NCY

Kenya Pound One ~enya Sh1111~gs (Kshs) Twenty

Kshs 20.9 A~proXlmatel~ US Dollar ONe (July 19B9)

Kenya Pound 1 ~S $ 0.96

FIGURES NUMBER

PAGE

1 GraPh en Rec~rren~ 1n Education compared to t!"'.e To-:al GC?< Rect.;rrent Budget....................... 62

2 Graph en Compared

Development Ex;enditure on Education to the Tc-:al GCK Development Budget .•.....•. 63

ABBREVIATIONS

GOK GOVERNMENT OF KENYA

JITs HAR~~BEE INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY

JKUCAT JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE & TECENOLOGY

KIE KENYA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

KTTC KENYA TECHNICAL TEACHERS COLLEGE

MCSS MINISTRY OF CULTURE & SOCIAL SERVICES

MOE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

MOF MINISTRY OF FINANCE (AND OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT)

MTTAT MINISTRY OF TECHNICAL TRAINING & APPLIED TECHNOLOGY

PTA PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION

THE PRESIDENTIAL WORKING PARTY ON EDUCATION AND MANPOWER TRAINING FOR THE NEXT DECADE AND BEYOND.

TTl TECHNICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

TTC TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE

USAB UNIVERSITY STUDENTS ACCOMMODATION BOARD

EXECUTIVE SUt=!MARY

BacKgrou::d

1. In Aug~st 1985. His Excellenc¥ the Pres~dent of the Republic of Kenya appoin-:ed a "WorKing Party on Education and Manpower Training for the Next Decade and Beyond". The Presidential WorKing Party (PWP) issued repor-: in March 1988. This report contained recommendations for far-reachin~ changes in the pOlicies. curricula and programmes of the education sector. The PWP identified efficiency savings and enhanced private sector participation as crucial feacures in the future financing of education.

2. The Government of Kenya (GOK) accepted the recommendations of the PWP and promulated a new policy frameworK for the development of the education sector by way of the Sessional Paper Number 6 of 1988. Effective implementation of the proposed policy measures in education is however constrained by. among other reasons. lack of information on education costs. The purpose of this consultants report is therefore to provide a data base of the key costing parameters during the implementation process.

Trends in ~ Composition ~ ~ Costs ~ Education 3. Over the past two decades the Government has allocated the highest proportion o~ its budgeted resources to the education sector. During that period. except in the fiscal years 1977/78 and 1978/78. education has consistently been allocated more than a fifth of all the GOK resources. Education has had a much larger proportion in recurrent expenditures than in development (caPital) expenditure. Since 1968/69. the Education Sector share of GOK annual development budget has been conSistently well below 10%. In the recurrent budget. however. the education sector has since 1970/71 been allocated between 25.6% and ~1.1% of the financial resources.

4. The GOK allocation of budgetary resources between the various levels of education has been relatively consistent for both recurrent and development expenditure over the years. Primary education has had the largest share of the budgeted recurrent resources, at about 60% of the total education recurrent budget. Secondary and University levels of education have generally taken the second and third place respectivelY after primary education. each at about 15% of the total expenditure on education. General administration and planning. which includes curriculum development and the inspectorate, has over the years occupied the fourth position in the share of edUcation resources. The fifth pOSition is taken by technical training. with an allocation generally below 3%. After that. the Government allocates minimal levels of resources to pre-primary education and the schools for the handicapped.

i

5. At ever;v level of education, a very :l1.h ;roportic:: of the recurrent resources has been used on personne~ ex~end1~~re. and particularl;v on teachers sararies. Dur~n. t~e past fi~e ;vears, for example, expenditure on teachers' salar:es ar.j al:owences has been consistentenl;v hi.h.at above 67% c~ the totai rec~rren: expenditure of the MOE.

6. The level of GOK bud.et on development ex~enditure has been much lower than that on recurrent expenditure. During 1988/89 fiscal ;vear, for example. the recurrent estimates. at Ken;va Pounds 452 million, are more than eleven times the development estimates.

7. GOK priorities on development expenditure are significantly difrent from those on recurrent expenditure. In recurrent expenditure. priority allocations were on primary. secondary. and university education in that order. In the developpment budget. investment in university education has emerged as the top priority, particularly in recent years when it has exceeded 30% of the total budgeted education development funds.

8. Government allocation of development expenditure to primary education has been very low, which contrasts to the high priority allocation of recurrent expenditure to this level of education. Lower down. to the pre-primary level. the GOK does not allocate any development resources. Therefore. at those levels of education where enrolment is highest, the bulk of the development resources are provided b¥ parents and communities.

~ Planned Leyels ~ Composik10n ~ Expendityre ~ Edycation

9. Inrec:.i\irrenF-expei\cHtur:e."exc'ept1.onuil' larflte :inereases or 34.4%' ana 30.7% over the preced:inflt ~eaZ" are planned ror'un:iversit¥ education in 1990 and 1991respectivel¥. reflecting the anticipated high jump in university enrolment in 1990. It is planned that the primary education share of recurrent budget resources will continue to decline gradually during the forward budget period. from 56.5% in 1988/89 to 51.5% b¥ 1991/92. The proportion of recurren~ expenditure allocated to secondary education will also be gradually reducea from the current 16.4% to about 14.5%. The only sub sector which will gain in its share of GOK recurrent expenditure on education will be university education.

10. As it is the case for recurrent expenditure, university edncation w:ill receive sign:ificant increases from the GOK planned development expenditure during the forward budget period. The proportion of development expenditure on university education to the total development expenditure on education is planned to increase from 33.3% in 1988/89 fiscal year to 66.7% in the 1991/92 fiscal year. On the whole, the Government has planned for an overall decline b¥ an average of 10.2% p~r annum of the development funds employed in the education sectOr b¥ the end of the forward budget period. Therefore, during this period, only the universities, schools for handicapped and

i

:uit:~~ fees. :inan~'ng of pri~ary ~:ucation by parents could be some 26.2\ above the tot.: level of gove~~ment financing. Shs 9 a 6 per pupil ;er a~~um.

15. The author's =indi~gs also s~,gest that parents' avera~e annual expe~:iture per stucent 1~ GOK main:ained schools has about doubled in real terms over :~e past fi'le years. Five years ago. parents in 30K ~aintalntec boar:in~ schools we~e spending an avera~e of Shs 2.355 per student per year at curre~t prices. compared to the current esti~ate6 of Shs 5.US1 ;er year. )verall. it is estimated that privete and cornmunit~' financin~ for 3econdary education is about 73% of t~e total cost. Still the avera~e parent's expenditure on such items as booKs. esti~ated at S~s 382 per annum, is far below the level reco~ended by the M~E. which is estimated at Shs 1. 232 per annum.

16. In vocational and technical ejucation institutions, private and community financin~ is particul~lY low at the higher. national polytechnics level. estimated at 1S~ of the total cost. At the TTIs. Youth Polytechnic and HITs level. the percenta~e of private and community financin~ rises to a3%. 58% ad 80% respectively.

17. The total annual recurrent costs per student at the four public universities amount to Shs 72.480. rhe annual recurrent expenditure on tuition per student at the local public universities is estimated by the MOE at an avera~e of Shs sa.c)o. Throu~h the students loan scheme. university students are fin~~cin~ some 16.7% of their tuition fees at the university. :n addition. the students are loaned by the Gover~ment about Shs 18.~eO per year to cover their expenses on food and ether learnin~ materials.

18. The GOK funds all the development costs at the local public uniVerSities. Therefore. private f1nancin~ at the local public universities is limited to the students repayment of the principal amounts for the loans advanced by the Government to the students. On t~is basiS. the private share of the costs at the public universities is equivalent to 38X of the total recurrent costs. However. since the recovery of the &Dounts 10aned to students for the past thirteen years has been very poor. there is in effect no private financin~ of university education at present

19. In Teacher Training Colle~es tTTCs). the Government meets all the development expenditure and also virtually all the recurrent expenditure. It is estimated that the fees paid by the teacher trainees at the primary TTCs and the Diploma (Secondary)TTCs amounts to only 16X and ax respectively of t~e total recurremt costs for these institutions.

finanCial Implications ~ ~ Pr?posed Pro~rammatic Changes

20. There is no hard an~ accurate ~ata on costs and units of measure ~o ap~lY in cos~ing :he various poli~y measures on education.

i~

Therefore, to pos~ulate on t~e assumptions and derive cos: est~mates. a comparative framework of al:ernative scenaries. is ado~:ed. The base case is the C"..lrrent programmes scenario which assumes a continuation of ~ast polie~es and trends i~ the expansion 0= the educa:ion system at each level of education. In the alterna:ive. new programmes scenario. the major policy measures outlined in the Sessiona~ Paper are interpreted in financial terms by associatin~ each such measure with quantitative changes in either inputs or outpu:s for each level of the education sys:em for the period 1990 - 2000.

21. The overall results of :he financial projections show that the Government could throu~h the implementation Or the proposed programmatic changeS, resulting in effiency improvements and cost sharing realize net cost savin~s estimated at Kenya Pounds 6~9 million over the period 1990 to 2000. The alternative is a poor, wasterrul and less effective future system of education.

22. ~ Sayings; The cost savings for the GOK under the new programmes scenario would be found at the level of university education {Kenya Pounds ~92 million}. secondary education (Kenya Pounds 31~ million) and teacher training (Kenya Pounds 101 Million). For the university level, Kenya Pounds ~16 million would be realized in recurrent costs. and about Kenya Pounds 16 million in development costs. At the secondary level. savings would accrue in recurrent costs. Kenya Pounds d30 million. but some of the savings would be eroded away by new investiments (development costs). some Kenya Pounds 183 million. The proposed programmatic changes are not expected to chan~e the already planned level Of GOK financial support for the development of TTes. Therefore. all cost savings at the teacher training level would accrue in recurrent expenditure.

23. ~ Inyestments; The implementation of the proposed programmatic changes will give rise to net additional costs by the GOK at the vocational and technical education. primarY and pre-primary levels of education. estimated at Kenya Pounds 111 million. Kenya pounds 18 million and Kenya pounds 6 million resectively for the period 1990 -2000. In vocational and technical education. there would be some cost savings (about Kenya Pounds 32 million) in recurrent costs but a much hi~her level of new investments (about Kenya Pounds 209 million) would be incurred in development costs. At primary level of education, GOK would provide additional funding for both recurrent and development expenditure. about Kenya pounds 10 Million and Kenya pounds 8 million respectively. No GOK investments as development costs are anticipated under either scenario. Additional GOK costs at the pre-primarY level would be in recurrent expenditure, and only Kenya Pounds 6 million.

2~. ~ Sharlne; At every level of education parents. communities and private enterpreneurs will be required to shoulder the financial burden of increases in recurrent costs and the additional new investments contemplated in the implementation of the proposed programmatiC changes. In recurrent costs, private and community finanCing Will' have to increase substantially at the levels of pre-primary education lby about 100%,), university education {by about

v

1':"3%). and teac!"';er tl'ainin,;; (by abcut 3':"3%). Mil-·j i~:::reases ove:::tr.e cur::-ent programmes level of pr:!.vate and community financing ere projec~e~ for the secondary education and vocational and technical traini~,;;. and only a margi~.l increase. from Kenya pounds 1.737 millio~ to Kenya pounds 1.7~J millien. is prcjected for the primary level cf education.

25. Major increases in private and community investments in educati::n development are ~rojected at the pre-primary. secondary. and un1~ersity levels. At the pre-primary level. the atta1nment of new pr~~ramme ~oals require that parents. communities and private enterprises double their investment in new facilities. from Kenya Pounds :71 million to Kenya ?ounds 3~1 million for the period 1990 to 2000. It is projected that the proposed programmatic changes will result in the rapid development of private and community institutions in secondary and university education. and the cost of these investments for the period 1990 to 2000 are estimated at Kenya Pounds 65 million and Kenya pounds 19U million respectively. The projected increases in private and community financing of vocational and technical education is comparatively not substantial, in absolute terms, only Kenya Pounds 19 million. There are no private and community investments projected in the development of TTCs. At the primary level, it is assumed that the implementation of the proposed programmatic changes will not significantly alter the already hefty projected private and community burden of development costs, Kenya Pounds U,002 million for the pe~iod 1990 to 2000.

26. :t is projected that as a result of efficiency savings. arising in the implementation of the proposed pro~rammatic changes, the overall resources implications for the economy will be mild, an increase of about 3.7% (Kenya Pounds 625 million) above the level projected under the current programmes scenario. However, the burden of these increases plus the projected cost savings acrruing to the GOK will be met by private and community financing. Overall, the progr~atic changes will increase the share of private financing of education from 52% to 57% for the period covered by the projections.

Constralnts ~ ~~ AnalYsis ~ Education Finances

27. Constraints and practical probelems encountered in the costing of Kenya's education finances included-:

(a) the MOE has a narrow statical data base;

(b) there is no centralised monitoring of costs of individual education institutions;

( c) it is difficult to identify and measure private and community costs;

(d) GOK institutional arrangements for education and training are somewhat fragmented. and it is therefore difficult to ensure the inclusion of a1: costs:

{el GOK cate~orisa710n of expenditure. par7icula~y te7wee~ deve:"opmer.1: and l'e'purrent. is not always consistently 3.;>piiej;

lfJ the~e is divers!1:Y between public and private and in estimations one has to choose between pri~.te ccsts a~j hi~her pUblic costs; and

standard costs. ~eneral:"y lcwer

(~) GOK accountin~ and reportin~ arran~ements a~e no: en:irel~' consisten: with accurate and reliable accountin~ prac'C~ces. and as a result. for example. central Government accou~1:in~ records of expenditure which are a~~re.ated. cannot provide a basiS for the analysis of expenditure between differe~t COS1: ite~s and cate~ories.

vii

PlTRODUCTION

Ba.ckground

1.1 In August 1985. His Excellencv the President of the Republic

of Kenva appointed a "Working Partv on Education and Manpower

Train1n~ for the Next Decade and Sevond". The Presidential Wor~in~

Partv (PWP) comprised emm1nent Kenvans w1th a w1de ran~e of

experiences, The PWP was commissioned to review the Government'g

education objectives and policies, and recommend wavs and means of

sustainin~ ~rowth of the education sector consistent with

improvements in Qualitv and relevance. The PWP submitted its report

to the President in March 1988 after two and a half vears of extensive

fact findin~ and deliberations (1). The PWP report contained

recommendations for far-reaching changes in the policies, curricula and

programmes of the education sector. The PWP recommended policies and

strate~ies for cost effective and effecient development and mana.ement

of the education svstem.

1.2 The demo~raphic pressures ar1s1n~ from Kenva's exceptionallv hi~h

population ~rowth rate will provide a continuin~ impetus for the

expansion of education but the Government is alreadv experiencein~

si~nificant fiscal constraints in education financin~. More resources

are also required to improve the Qualitv and relevance of education. and

ensure the success of the major changes introduced in 1985 as the 8-4-4

svstem. The PWP therefore identified efficiencv savin~s and

enhanced private sector participation as crucial features in

the future financin~ of education.

(1) Government of Kenva (GOK), Report of the Presidential Workin. Partv on Education and'Manpower Trainin~ for the Next Decade and Sevond March 1988

1

sector. Durl~~ that-period, except 1n the fiscal years ~977/7S

and 19~3/79. educatior. has consistently been allocated more

than a fifth cf a1: the 30K resources. During the past four fiscal

years, ejucat~on has taken an avera~e of 26% of the total GOK ~ud~et.

excludir.~ eX7raordinar~ allocations for defence and public debt

write-ofes (see Ap~endix Table A 1.1)

1.6 Education has had a much larger proportion in recurrent

expenditures than in development expenditures. Since

1968/69. the education sector share of GOK annual development budget

has been consistently well below 10%. In the current financial year,

this share stands at 6.6~. In the recurrent budget. however, the

education sector has since 1970/71 been allocated between 25.6~

and ~1.1~ of the financial resources. In the current budget. this

share stands at 37.9%. The education share of GOK budgeted

recurrent and development expenditures is graphically illustrated

in Figures 1 and 2 respectively,

1.7 R@current Exp@nditure; The GOK allocation of budgetary

resources for recurrent expenditure between the various levels of

education has been relatively consistent over the years. Table 1

below shows that primary education has had the largest share ot the

budgeted recurrent resources (see Appendix Table A 1.2 for actual

expenditures). This proportion has been around 60% since the mid

1970s and was a high 63.9% in the 1980/81 fiscal year. Since then

it has dropped slightly to 56.5~ by the current fiscal year,

1988/89.

3

TABLE 1: TREND IN THE COMPOSITION OF GOK RECURRENT EXPENDITURE. 1974-88

(F:GURES

General Administration & Plannin~

Primary Education

Teachers Education

Secondary Education

University Education

School for Handicapped

Pre-Primary Education

Technical Trainin~

ARE IN PERCENTAGE)

1974/75 1980/81

5.2 6.4

57.9 63.9

3.8 3.3

16.7 11. 5

13.2 11. 7

0.4 0.4

0.1

2.7

1985/86 1988/89

7.6 6.0

61.1 56.5

3.8 2.8

14.2 16.4

10.6 14.3

0.4 0.7

0.1 0.1

2.1 3.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: GOK Annual Recurrent Estimates

1.8 Secondary and university levels of education have ~enerallY

taken the second and third place respectively after primary education.

For most of the years. secondary education has been just afew percenta~e

pOints above that of the university. In the current fiscal year. the

allocations are 16.4% and 14.3% for secondary and university education

respectively (Table 1).

1.9 General administration and plannin~. which includes

curriculum development and the inspectorate. has over the years

occupied the fourth position in the share of recurrent education

resources. This share rose from 5.2% in 197~/75 to 7.6% in 1985/86.

but has dropped to 6% in 1988/89. The fifth position is taken

by tech~:cal trainin~ with an allocation ~enerally below 3~. until

in 1988/~9 when this rose to 3.1~. After that, the Government

allocates minimal levels of resources to pre-primary education and

the scho=ls for the handicapped (Table 1).

1.10 At every level of education, a very hi~h proportion of the

recurrent resources has been used on personnel expenditure, and

particularly on teachers salaries. Table 2 shows the composition of

the 1988/89 Ministry of Education budget by major categories of

expendit~re.

TABLE 2: COMPOSITION OF THE MOE 1988/89 BUDGET BY CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE

CATEC~RY PERCENTAGE SHARE

Teacters' Salaries and Allowances 71.2%

Professional and administrative staff salaries and allowances 10.8%

ACQuisition services

of current goods and

Financial students)

investments (mainly loans to

Fixed capital formation

TOTAL 99.8%

Source: Paper presented by MOF (Budgetary Supply Department) on Financing Education to the Mombasa Conference.

During the past tive years, for example, expenditure on

Teachers salaries and allowances has been consistently hi~h.

above 67X of the total recurrent expenditure Of the Ministry

of Educat10n (Table 3)

5

TABLE 3: EXPENDITURE ON TEACHERS SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES AS A % OF TOTAL EDUCATION RECURRENT BUDGET

(AMOUNTS IN KENYA POUNDS MILLION)

YEAR TOTAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURE ON RECURRENT BUDGET TEACHERS

AMOUNT X

198~/85

1985/86

1986/87

1987/88

1988/89

221.5

296.3

383.0

385.6

155.9

215.2

259.4

283.3

303.5

70.~

72.6

67.7

73.5

67.1

Source - GOK RECURRENT ESTIMATES

1.12 Deyelopment Expenditure: The level of GOK expenditure on

development (capital) expenditure has been much lower than that on

recurrent expenditure. During 1988/89 "fiscal ~ear, for example,

the recurrent estimates, at Kenya Pounds 452 million, are more than

eleven times the developmet estimates (see Appendix Table Al.1).

1.13 GoK priorities on development expenditure are significantly

d1fferent from those on recurrent expenditure. In recurrent

expenditure, priority allocations were on primary, secondary, and

university education in that order. In development expenditure,

investment in University Education has emerged as the top priority,

particularly in recent years when it has exceeded 30% of the total

development resources budgeted for education (Table A). Teachers

education has also been accorded high priority in the allocation of

development funds. taking more than 10% share for all the ~ears since

the mid 1970s, and r1sing to 22.6% in 1985/86. Other levelS of

6

education that have been cons~stencl¥ alloca~ed a lar.e share of GOK

educat~on development resources are technical education and s~condar¥

education. In some ¥ears, technical education ha~ had ver¥ hi~h

allocation o~ the development estimates. For exa=ple. in 1980/81

and 1988/89 ~iscal ¥ears technical education was :or each period

respectivel¥ allocated 36.5% and 26.9% o~ ~he ~otal education

development budget. Since the mid - 1970s, when alloca~ions to secondar¥

education reached a high 40.8%. these have been on the decline.

Clearl¥. a significant feature of the GOK allocation of development

resources over the ¥ears has been shifting priori~ies. particularl¥

between Secondarv. Technical. Universit¥. and Tea~hers education

(Table 4. also see Appendix Table A1.3 tor amounts).

TABLE 4: GOK ALLOCATION OF EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES 1974- 1988

1974/75 1980/81 1985/86 1988/89

General Planning 8. Administration 1. 9% 7.8% 7.5% 7.7%

Primarv Education 3.8% 15.9% 8.8% 2.3%

Teachers Education 10.3% 11.5% 22.6% 19.7%

Secondarv Education 40.8% 13.9% 10.7% 6.2%

Universitv EdUcation 21.8% 13.0% 34.4% 36.3%

Schools for Handicapped 11.9% 1.3% 5.7% 0.9%

Pre-Primarv 0.% 0.% 0.% 0.%

Technical Training 9.4% 36.5% 10.2% 26.9%

TOTAL 100.% 100.% 100.% 100.%

Source: GOK Development Estimates.

7

l.la '30vernment alloca"ion of develop~ent expenditure to ?rimar¥

education has been very low. which contrasts to t~e hi.h priori"¥

allocation of recurrent expenditure "0 th!s level o~ education.

Lower down. to the pre-primary level. the GOK does not allocate any

develop~ent resources. Therefore at these levels of educa"ion. where

enrolment is highest. the bulk of the ~evelcpment resources is

provided b¥ parents and communities.

1.15 Since about 1980, significant amounts (Over 7.5% of the

total) of education development resources have been allocated

under the category of general administration and planning

(Table ~). Much of these resources have been used in the development

of the curriculum development centre (K.I.E) and the Kenya National

Examinations Council.

~ Planned Leyels ~ Composition ~ Expenditure ~ Education

1.16 Recurrent Expenditure; The current GOK fo~ard budgets,

covering the period 1990-1992. indicate the GOK medium term priorities

in the allocation of resources for the education sector. During

forward budget period recurrent expenditure on education will increase

in real terms over the 1988/89 estimates by an average of 9.23% per

annum (Table 5. See Appendix Table A1.a for amounts) while the budgeted

increase in all GOK recurrent expenditure is targeted at only 4%.

1.17 In recurrent expenditure, exceptionally large increases of

34.4% and 30.7% over the proceeding year are planned for University

Education in 1990 and 1991 respectively. reflecting the anticipated

high jump in University enrolment in 1990. It is also planned

to substantially i~crease the flow of GOK recurrent resources to

8

Technical Educs.:ion by an a:1!"1ual average of l1..J.%

dur1.ng the f'ows..::,d budget period. The b:.1dgets of' the other major education levels. i.e primary. secc!"1dary and teacher education. are

also expected to ~row at faster ra,es (6.6%. 5.6 and 7.6% respectively)

,han the overa:: GOK tar~et: 4~ annual ~rowth rate in recurrent

expenditure (Tab:e 5).

TABLE 5: PLANNED 3ROWTH IN EDUCATION REC~RRENT EXPENDITURES, 1990 -92

(I~ PERCENTAGE)

1990 1991 1992 ANNUAL AVERAGE

General Administration & Planning 0.9 6.8 4.4 4

Primary Education 10.4 4.8 4.6 6.6

Teachers Educatic!"1 6.6

Secondary Educati~n 5.8 5.3 5.6 5.6

University Educat!on 30.7 10.3 25.1

Schools for Handi:apped 4.9 U .• O 8.2

Pre-Primary 2.4 2.0 2.8 2.4

Miscellaneous Ser'/ices (MOE) 4.3 0.8

Technical Trainin~ (MTTAT) 17.3 9.9 11.4

Adult Education 4.6 5.9 4.6

TOTAL EDUCATION S!CTOR 12.0 6.0 9·3

Source: Calculated from GOK Draft Forward Recurrent Bud~et. !989/90 - 1991/92.

9

1.:8 It is plan~ed that ~~e Primary education share of recurrent

b~~~et resources will conr1nue to decline ~raduallY durin~ the

f=~ward bud~et pe~iod. frc~ 56.5~ in 1988/89 to 51.5~ by 1991/92.

Tte proportion of recurrent expenditure allocated to secondary

e~~cation will also be ~rajuallY reduced from the current 16.a~ to

a~~ut la.5~. The only sub-sector which will ain in its share of

GC~ recurrent expenditure on education wil~ be University education

(A~pendix Table Ai.A).

Deyelopment Expenditure; As it is the case for recurrent

expenditure. University education will receive significant increases

from the GOK plan~ed development eXpenditure during the forward

buj~et period. The proportion of development expenditure on University

ed~cation to the ~otal development expenditure bn education is planned

tc increase from 35.3~ in 1988/89 fiscal year to 66.7~ in the

tte 1991/92 fiscal year (Table 6. see Appendix Table A1.5 for

details of amounts). Other levels of education favoured 1n the

allocation of GOK development funds are Technical Education and

Teachers Trainin~.

1.20 On the whole. the Government has planned for an overall decline

by an average of 10.2% per annum of the development 'funds employed

in the education sector by the end of the forward budget period

(Table 7). Therefore. durin~ this period. only the

Universities. Schools for Handicapped and Secondary education can

expect additional annual allocations of development expenditure from

tte Government.

10

TABLE 6: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION, 1989-1992 (AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ~DUCATION BUDGET)

1989 1990 1991 1992

General Admin & Planning 7.5 5.0 8.8 6.6

Primar!;" Education 2.3 2.2 2.4 0.9

Teachers Education 19.2 9.9 21. 5 5.0

Secondar:y Education 6.0 7.9 5.3 7.0

Universit:y Education 35.3 64.5 40.6 66.7

Schools for Handicapped 0.9 0.6 1.5 2.8

Pre-Primar:y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Miscellaneous services - MOE 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0

Technical Training (MTTAT) 26.2 8.5 18.2 8.5

Adult Education 1.9 0.8 1.7 2.4

TOTAL - EDUCATION SECTOR 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Ca~cu~ated from the Draft Foward Development Budget.

TABLE 7: PLANNED ANNUAL PERCENTAGE GROWTH (DECLINE) GOK IN DEVELOPMENT

EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION 1990 - 1992

1990 l.991 1.992 AVERAGE

General Admin & Planning 5.3 (12.0) (52.9) (19.8) Primary EdUcation 52.7 (45.8) (76.6) (23.2) Teachers Education (19.5) 9.3 (85.4) (31. 9) Secondar:y Education 106.1 (66.4) (16.6) 7.7 Universit:y Education 186.1 (68.4) 3.5 40.4 Schoo~s for Handicapped 14.7 18.8 18.7 17.4 Pre-Primar:y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Service-MOE 0.0 (100.0) 0.0 33.3 Technical. training (MTTAT) (49.3) 7.5 (70.5) (37.4) Adu~t Education (MCSS) (37.9) 15.9 (13.2) (11.7) TOTAL - EDUCATION SECTOR 56.3 (119.8) (37.1) (10.2)

Source: Calculated from the Draft Foward Devel.opment Budget.

11

Current ~ Planned ~ Expendi,yre ~ Student

1.21 Recurrent Expenditure; At ever~ level of education. student

enrolment is projected to increase significantly during the

period 19B9 1993 (Table B). In this context it is noteworthy that

the GOK has planned for increases in its recurrent budgetary allocations

per student at every level of education except adult education.

However. all the increases will be marginal except in the case of

University Education and Technical Training. which will realize

respectively some 28% and 22~ rise in bud~eted GOK recurrent

expenditure per student between 1989 and 1992 (Table 9).

TABLE 8: PROJECTED STUDENT ENROLMENT 1989 - 1993 (Numbers in OOOs)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Primary Education 5400.0 5580.0 5762.0 5945.0 6130.0

Teachers Education 17.6 18.3 19.2 20.3 21. 5

Secondary Education 735.0 758.0 790.0 806.0 812.0

University Education 32.1 36.8 42.2 48.6 55.7

Schools for Handicapped 10.3 11.3 12.5 13.7 15.1

Pre-Primary 886.9 888.7 890.8 891. 2 926.9

Technical trainin~ 19.5 20.4 21. 2 22.0 22.9

Adult Education 301.0 331.0 364.0 401. 0 441.0

Source: GOK Development Plan. 1989 - 1993

12

TABLE 9: PLANNED GOK RECURRENT EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT 1989 - 1992 (amounts in Kshs)

1989 1990 1991 1992

Primary Education 945 1. 010 1. 025 1.039

Teachers Education 111.374 14.731 15.289 15.508

Secondary Education 2.015 2.068 2.089 2.163

University Education 40.313 47.249 53.834 51.563

School.s for Handicapped 701 733 787 853

I?re-Primar:,r 13 13 1.3 1.4

Technical training 1.4.537 16.298 1.7.241. 17.759

Adul.t Education 425 405 390 365

Source: GOK Draft Foward Recurrent Estimates and the Devel.opment Plan.

1.22 peyel.opment Expend1ture: As al.ready indicated at para~raph

1..20 above, GOK has pl.anned for an overal.l. reduction in the amount ot

devel.opment tunds annual.l.y bud~eted tor education durin~ the foward

bud~et period. A~ain, as al.ready indicated el.sewhere above, GOK

development expenditure al.l.ocations are hi~hl.y skewed in

tavour of University Education. Furthermore, al.thou~h there wil.l.

be an overal.l. decline in the allocation of development funds to the

education sector durin~ the toward bud~et period, it is pl.anned that

University Education and Special Education (Schools for the Handicapped)

will continue to have large increases in budgeted development tunds

(Table 7 above). Theretore, overall Government development fundin~

per student will decline substantiall:,r tor all levels ot education,

except Schools for handicapped (Table 1.0). It must be assumed that the

1.3

Governmen~ ex;ects ~hat any additional resources required for ~he

developn:.ent :::'! educa7ion will substantially come from private

and cornr.;'.lni t;~,: 30ur::es.

TABLE 10: PL.t..NNED GOK DEVELCPMENT COST PER STUDENT ON EDUCATION.

(A~JUNTS IN KSHS)

1989 1990 1991 1992

Primary Educa":ion lJ. 5 3 1

Teachers Educs.'Cion 9.110 7.050 7.3ll8 1.016

Secondar¥ Education 68 136 IU 36

University Education 9.184 22.920 6.307 5.666

Schools for Handica"ped 1. 1116 1.312 1.555 1.8ll5

Pre-Primary 0 0 0 0

Technical trainini: 11.230 5,llll3 5.631 1,602

Adult Educatic!1 53 30 31 25

Source: GCK draft Foward Development Estimates and the Development Plan.

1.23 Table 11 shows the overall GOK allocation of both recurrent

and developmen'C funds per student at each level in 1989. and in

each of the subsequent years of the draft foward budi:et period.

The hii:hest per student annual allocation is at University level,

Shs 49.ll98 in 1989. Technical training and teachers education follow,

at about 50% of the level of allocation for university education.

Then the allocations for SCho~ls for handicapped. secondary education

primary education. adult education and pre-primary levels follow

in that order. with the latter receiving the minimum annual allocation

of Shs 13 per ::hild.

1.2C During the d~aft forward bud.et period. the GOK has planned

for an overall reduction in its per capital funding of educa:ion

at teacher trainin•. technical training and adult education level.

Mild increases are envisaged for pre-primary and secondary education

levels while large increases are planned for Universit¥ (16X)and

speCial education (32%). The adequacy or otherwise of the GOK

TABLE 11: PLANNED GOK REC. AND DEV. EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT 1989-1992

(AMOUNTS IN KSaS)

1989 1990 1991 1992

Primary Education 9/J.6 1.015 1,028 1.040

Teachers Education 23.48U 21.781 22,636 16.524

Secondary Education 2.083 2.204 2.133 2.199

University Education /J.9.U98 70.169 60.1Ul 57.230

Schools for Handicapped 11.811/J. 12.514 lU,299 15.632

Pre-?rimary 13 13 13 14

Technical training 25.767 21.7111 22.872 19.36l.

Adult Education 478 43U 421 390

Sou~ce: Based on the figures in Tables 9 and 10

funding at each level ot education are discussed in the

in the context of private and community contribution to

financing.

next chapter,

education

15

I

2.' The pr~port~on of private and communit~ financln~ '5 different at

es.::h level of education. generall~ reflecting :he S\Jfficlenc~ or

o-':'.erwise of GOK budgetary support at each level. The~e is ~irtu.ll~

nc private a~~d cOr.:'..Jnuni t~ financing of education at t"eache:::'s t!'aining,

s~ecial education and adult ecucation levels. A"': higt.er

ee~cation the Government provides virtuall~ all the development funds.

bu,,; at pre-primar~, primar~ and secondar~ levels. the greater

proportion of costs is provided b~ the parents and the local

co:::ununities. This chapter provides estimates of the current level of

annual private and communit~ costs at the various levels of education.

Pre-Prlmary Education

2.2 Direct ~overnment involvement in the management of pre-primar~

sc:-,ools is a relativel~ recent develo~ment. following the trend of

es:ablishin~ pre-primar~ school units within the precincts of existing

prlmar~ schools. As explained in the PWP report. disparate ~roups and

or.anisations. includin~ public school PTAs. local authorities,

reli~ious organisations, commercial firms. co-operatives. lar~e farms

and plantations, private or~anisations and women groups. and individual

enterpreneurs are all extensively involved in the operacion of pre

primar~ schools.

2.3 Standards. curricula, nature of operation and fees structure for

pre-primary institutions differ considerably. particularly between

urban and rural units. and high cost and low cost categories.

Similarl~ fees and charges vary between individual institutions. An

unstructured surve~ carried out in Nairobi last year indicated that

monthly fees in high cost pre-primar~ units range from sha 500 to Kshs

1 6

825. In medium cost schools ~rom Shs 250 ~o S~S ac:. i~ low cos:

schools ~~om Shs 185 to Shs 235. and in ~he l~~est cos: informa:

nursery sc~ools from Shs 50 to Shs 1000 (3).

2.4 In a number of major urban centres. such aa Na~robi. Mombasa and

Kisumu. ;rivately owned and operated pre-primary units ~ay be the

majority. From the author's cbservation. the larger and more affluent

the urban centre. the hi~her the proportion of ~he medium and high cost

pre-primary units. It is also true that there is less variation in the

form and costs of pre-primary units in the rural areas because few of

these institutions have been established outside the premises of the

established public primary schools.

2.5 To obtain some information on the level of fees and char~es paid

by pares in pre-primary units in the rural areas. the author got in

personal touch with afew paren~s from a rural distric: and interviewed

them on the nature and level of fees and charges for nursery

schools. The response of the four parents is summarized in Table 12.

The comparison with the results obtained in the Nairobi survey these

results are regarded to be a fair indicator of the level of fees and

charges paid for pre-primary school units 1n the rurual d1str1cts of

Kenya.

(3) Noor Mohammed S.O & Opondo Fred - Paper on Cost Sharin~ presented at a Seminar on Cost Sharing or~anised by GOK, UNICEF and Kenya Economics ASSOCiation, March/April 1988.

TABLE 12: ANt":AL FEES AND CHARGES IN RURAL ?RE- ?RIM.l.,?·:, Ur;:TS (AMOUNTS IN KSHS,I

NAME OF T-:TION PTA COST OF UNIF:?MS TOT:',L SCHOOL F::ES LEVIES BOOKS

(DEV)

Njaini Nursery

6c 340 20 100 53C

Njaini Nursery

6) 340 150 55e

Mbari Kuga

ya ~80 500 300 60 1050

Mukuruwe 6·) ~OO 20 150 330

AVERAGE 90 320 85 ~~5 6~O

Source: Au~hors's enquiries

2.6 The results of the author's interviews sugges~ a ~onthly fee

charge about the same level as that in the lowest cos~ nursery school

in Nairobi. About 56% of the annual costs {about shs 3UO per child} is

levied for development. On this basis. annual recu~rentprivate and

community financing for pre-primary education would be esti~ated at shs

270 per pupil. Clearly. however. it is difficult to determine a

reliable national average of the level of fees and charges paid at pre-

primary level without a comprehensive and structured survey of pre-

primary units in the country.

2.7 GOK is not involved in the direct funding Of any pre-primary

schools and its development expenditure budget does not include any

figures under this item. However. there is currentl¥ a section at the

MOE headquarters and field staff who are involved i the early

childhood education programme. It was estimated in the previous

chapter that GOK funding for this pre-primary progr~~e 1s currently

about sha ~3 per pupil per year. which translates to abour 2.~% of the

18

total annual cost ~er pup:: a cost

Therefore,

education is es~imate~ at soe ~~% o~ the ~o~al cos~s.

frimarv Educ~tlon

2.8 The total annual GOK buc.eta~~ allocation for p~imary education

amounts to shs 9a6 per pupil, comprising 99.9% of recurren~ items, and

only 0.01& of development i,,=ems. As indicated at Table 9 the

Government spends about shs 9U5 per primary school pupil in recurrent

expenditures. While "his level of GOK per student funding results in a

relatively collosal budgetary allocation to primary education (see

Chapter I), it is now generally acknowledged that this level of funding

falls far short of the total financin~ needs. The Government's pOlicy

of free primary educa~ion has contributed Significantly to a relatively

high enrolment rate in primary education. About 95% of GOK financing

is used in the employment of teachers and administration of the system.

Therefore, while parents do not pay for any tutuion fees, they are

increasingly expenditure by way of providing text books and

supplementary readers, stationery and consumably materials. Parents

are also required ~o provide such relati~elY expensive items as

uniforms before pupils can be admit~ed to school.

2.9 GOK development expenditure allocation to primary education is

about Kshs 4 per pupil (Table 10), which rarely filters the individual

institutions. Parents with children in primary schools are therefqre

required to finance virtually all the capital development necessary for

the expansion of the primary education institutions. The parents and

their communities have responded cO the challen~e of financing the

development throu~h a combination of school building levies (under

various names) by che Paren~s Teachers Associations (PTAS) and the

unique Kenya's self-help movement of Harambee.

19

2.10 It is d~~ficult tc dete~=ine the level of ~inan:ing by parents

and the communi:;,.' of ;;>rima::,y ed_:ation because sue!> data does not exist

and cannot be ot:ained bef~re a :omprehensive and struc:ured survey s

undertaKen. is w11e var:ance of what individual parents, the

PTAs and schoo: administrators ;erceive to be the required quantity

and quality of essential i:ems, such as text booKs. exercise booKs,

pens. inK. pencils. sportwear. ~niforms etc. Therefore. demands for

parental support by different sc~ools. even public schools in the same

neii;hbourhood. can vary consicerably. particularly depending on the

influence of opinion leade~s amc~g the members of PTA. Historically

also. some schools includini; ?ublic ones have involved as more hii;h

cost than others. Therefore. the author's estimates of private and

community cost of primary education are only an indication of the level

of mai;nitude.

2.11 In the paper by Mohammej and Opondo (5) the parental cost of

financini; primary education for ~upils in the lowest cost and high cost

primary schools in Nairobi are estimated to rani;e between shs 244 and

shs 1.734. These estimates cou:d be rather on the lower side in that.

fOr example, the annual cost 0= full uniform for a child in a low cost Nairobi school is unliKely to be less than Shs 200. without taKing into

account such items as school car1ii;ans, shoes. schoOl bai;. ties etc.

As shown in the Appendix Table A2.1, the annual cost of one set of full

uniform for a medium cost school is about Shs 1.000, while that in a

typical rural school is abou: Shs 300. FUrther, usini; the MOE

~ r L.

g:uidelines for recor:..:nende: sC.-.ool -cext booKs. the ar.~ual cos~ of

recommen:::!ed tex"t books fo!:' a pr:.~ary school r;>u;;:il is est:.mate,j at Shs

517. being: the avera.e cos: of :ooKs =or each class bet~een standard

one and elg:ht (Table :3).

TABLE .l..3..L. ANNUAL ~ .Q..E ~ Bgc-~ENr~D .:ux:r BC·)KS .l1f PE:MABY SCHOOLS

CLASS AMOUNTS (S3S)

STD 1 1.1.04.50 STD 2 U57.95 STD 3 339.95 STD 1.1. 1.1.81. 95 STD 5 69u.50 STD 6 855.00 STD 7 803.00 STD 8 791.i.00

TOTAL u.831.35

ANNUAL AVERAGE 517.04

Source: A text boo~s' l!st obtained from MOE press release and prices obtained from book retailers by the author (for details see Appendix table A2.2

(5) IBID - Noor Mohammed and Or;>ondo.

http:u.831.35http:791.i.00http:1.1.04.50

T~e au~hor ~as a:80 cc:lected data on primary schc~ls fees a.nd

expenses chrou~h personal con-act with a number of parencs in Nairc~i.

The data collected is tabu:a.ted in ~he

Appendix 7a.ble A2.3. T~e tabulations show that annual average cos~ of

!1igh cos~ primary schocls in Nairobi can be as high as shs 5.326 ~er

pupil. b~t after excluding tution fees in private schools. which is as

high as shS 7.500 per pupil. this average figure is reduced to shs

2.755. Lc~ cost city and rural schools in Muranga and Embu are Shs 936

and shs 699 per pupil respectively. The average for the two districts

is shs 817 per pupil. compriSing the items shown in Table 14.

TABLE 14: COMPOSITION OF THE AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS PER PUPIL FOR PARENTS FROM TWO RURAL DISTRICTS

ANNUAL ~ £ER PUPIL (SHS)

Activity ::ees

BooKs 182

Uniforms 158

Mischellaneous items

PTA & Development Levies (Include Harambee)

TOTAL

Source: Author's own informal survey data collected from Muranga and Embu Districts.

2.13 A noteable feature of the author's findings on the level of

parental funding of primary education in rural schools is that this

support: ::alls far short of the expectations of the curriculum

developers. in terms of the recommended level of text booKs Table 13),

a~d t~a~ of school adm1nis~~ato~s. i~ ~erms c~ school uniforms {see

A;pend_x Tab:e A2.1).The level of 9riva~e under funding for books and

unifor~s by ;aren~s is in lc~ cos~ urban and rural schools is therefore

estima7ed to be in the ra~.e of 65% and 21% respectively. On this

basis. assuming the same level of parental funding for development (shs

132 pe~ pupil per year). the desirable level or parental financing for

primary education is about Shs 1.19U per pupil per annum. In that

case, financin~ of primary education by parents would be some 26.2%

above the total level of Government financing. Shs 946 per pupil per

annum.

2.14 It is also significant that. according to the author's findings,

parental financial suppor~ in high cost public and private primary

schools (Appendix Table A2.2). which are generally located in the major

urban centres, is far above the level which may be considered to

be necessary for quality education the curriculum

developers and schools adm~nistrators. Parents in these schools are,

for example, persuaded to purchase books at a level well above that

recommended by the MOE (Appendix Table A2.3) and to buy uniforms that

are generally expensive (Appendix Table A2.1). In such schools.

exceptionally high fees may also be charged to provide for such extras

as swimming. music. a second foreign language (usually French) tUition.

piano classes. hot lunch. school transport etc. However. in the authors's

opinion. these high cost schools constitute less than 1% of the total

primary school enrolment in Kenya.

SecondarY Education

2.15 Until the Government accepted the recommedation of the PWP

report. there were four official categories of public secondary school

~nstitutions in Kenya, viz maintained national schools. maintained

23

provincial assisted schools and Harambee

(unaided) schools. Fur:her, :hese schools were again categorized as

either high cost or lc~ cost, and also as either boarding or day

schools. The ~ategorisa:ion 0: schools generally reflected the level

of government support in :he fi~ancing of sools.

while charging parents substancially higher fees in order to maintain

traditions of more expensive :acilities and operations, would also

generally receive higher levals of grants per student. Schools

categorized as day schools would not receive any government grants to

subsidize the students boarding expenses, although many schools

categorized as such had been transformed to boarding schools through

parental and community initiatiVes. Assisted (harambee) schools have

generally been entitled to Government support by way of teaching staff

while Harambee (unaided) schools were left by the Government to

parental and community support.

2.16 A state of dual status (i.e half maintained or assisted and half

unaided) had also emerged in many schools. In some cases, this arose

because the GoVernment would provide assistance to some streams or

classes in an harambee school. In others. there would be community

initiatives to set-up Harambee classes alongside those in Government

maintained schools. Therefore. in many schools categorized as

Government maintained, it has been common to find one or two streams of

classes that do not receiVe an offical grants. For such hools.

categorization was only significant in terms of GOK/MOE budgetary

allocation of grants to the school based on the number of students in

the maintained classes. In such quasi-maintained schools, private

financing of both tuition and boarding costs would be substantial.

Furthermore, si~ce the enrolment in aSSisted. harambee and unaided

~rivate schools outnumber Govern~ent maintained schools (Table 15),

?rivate and communit~ financing of secondar~ educstion is quite high.

TABLE 15: NUMBERS OF CLASSES AND E~20LMENT IN SEC~NDARY SCHOOLS BY CATEGORY, 1988

CATEGORY NO. OF CLASSES TOTAL STUDENTS OF SCHOOLS ENROLMENT

GOK Maintained 6530 263 3119 GOK Assisted 5700 183 013 Harambee 790 27 388 Pl:'ivate/Conununi t¥ 1738 66 UI.I.2

TOTAL 1/J.758 51.1.0 192

Source: MOE Department of Planning.

2.17 Government support to maintained schools has also been

inadequate for most schools in recent ~ears (6). This has been a

deterioratin~ trend since the 1970s. While secondar~ education has

expanded considerably through the ~ears. the GOK has been reducin~ the

secondary education share of funds bud~eted for the education sector

(Table 1.1.). Thus, for example, in 1971.1./75 financial ¥ear, secondary

education was allocated uo.8% of all GOK funds bud~eted for education

but this ratio had dropped ~raduall¥ throu~h the years to the current

(1988/89) level of only 6.2%. The Government. has therefore been

plannin~ or anticipatin~ for increased private and community

financing of secondary education.

(6) B.Makau - Strate~ies and Options for Secondary Training and Education, a paper presented at a Seminur or~anised b~ the PWP in collobaration with the World Bank. May 1987.

25

2.17 'the author has infor::':'_":1all:,.' surveyed and :::ollectec. data regarding

the level of fees and other :::harges paid by parents i some lU secondary

sChools., The author's find~~gs o~ each" individual school are presented

in the Appendix Table A2.4. These results sho~ that the average amount

of fees and chargs paid in these schools is S~S 6.233 per student per

annum. The sample of 14 s:::hools however included one exceptionally

exive school. and the exclusion of this schoel from the data analysis

resulted in a drop of the average amount of fees and charges for the

other 13 schools to Shs 5.a51 per annum per student (Appendix Table

A2. 4 (b) ) . The composition of this amount is shown in Table 16.

TABLE 16: AVERAGE ANNUAL SECOSDARY SCHOOL FEES AND CHARGES BY EXPENDITURE ITEM

COST/EXPENDITURE ITEM

Tution

Books

Boarding fees

Activity fees

Uniforms

Examination fees

Transport to School

Pocket Money

Awards

Caution money

Medical fees Subject (Home Economics) Levy PTA Development Levies

TOTAL

ANNUAL AVERAGE (KSHS)

643

382

2.219

583

96

80

61

2

93

21

38

1.185

5.451

Source: Author's own informal survey

2.18 The result~ summarized in Table 16 suggest that parents' average

annual expenditure per student in GOK maintained schools has about

doubled in real terms over the past five years. In 1983/84, parents in

26

GOK maintainec boarding schools ~-ere spending an average of Shs 2.355

per student ~er year at curren7 pri~es (Table 17) compared to the

current es~ima7es of Shs 5.U51 per year. Still the average parents

expenditure on such items as booKs. a7 Shs 382 per annum. is far below

the level reco~~ended by the MOE, MhiC~ is estimated at Shs 1, 232 per

annum (see Appendix Table A2.5).

TABLE 17: AVERAGE ANNUAL RECURREN7 EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT IN GOK MAINTAINED SECONDARY SCHOOLS, IN 1983/84 FISCAL YEAR - AT CURRENT* (1988/98) PRICES

TYPE OF SCHOOL GOK AVERAGE PARENTS TOTAL AVERAGE EXPENDITURE AVERAGE EXPENDITURE

EXPENDITURE

SHS SHS SHS

High Cost Boarding 4.793 3.543 8.339 Hardship area Boarding 3.999 2.355 '6.354 Low Cost - Boarding 3.867 2.355 6.222 Low Cost - Day 2,808 1.164 3.972

Source: MOE Statistics Units. adapted from paper by Noor Mohammed (7)

* Note: 1983/84 figures are adjusted to current prices by the middle income index of consumer prices in Nairobi for recreation. entertainment and education.

2.19 Current GOK funding for students in secondary education, which

is mainly in the form of teachers salaries and allowances. is an

average of Shs 2.015 per year (Table 9). Total annual expenditure per

student, including Shs 5451 per annum by way of parental finanCing, may

therefore be estimated at Shs 7,A66. Then. private and community

financing for secondary education is about 73% of the total cost.

(7) IBID - Noor MOAammed & Opondo.

27

Vccatlonal ~ Tec~nici' ~du;atlQt

2.20 GOK finar.clng ~f vocational ar.= technical education implies

different levels pf pr1.·/ac:e a.:".d communi:l/ financing at i:he various

levels of educa:ion. 30K financing support 1s

propori:ionately high ai: the r.~tional polytechnics levels but low at

the youth (village) polytechr.lc level. Government finances all the

development expendli:ure a': :~e national polytechnics. The youth

polytechnics and harambee institutions pf technology (HITS) generally

rely on private and communii:y financing. However. there is currently a

Government programme sU~90rt the equipment of the Harambee

instii:utes of i:echnology.

2.21 On recurrent exper.dii:ure items, !;:rivate and community flnancing

is verl/ low at the national poll/technics level, only about 15% on all

expenses, excluding tutuion. Most students at these institutions Pall

for their boarding expenses from allowances paid by their employers, or

sponsors, includin. GOK. Information on GOK and Private financing per

student for the various technical edUcation institutions as shown in

Table 18 was provided by MTTAT staff.

http:polytechr.lc

7ABLE 18: ANNUAL FEES AND CHARGES (RECURRENT EXPENDITURE) PER STUDEST IN TECHSICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

ESTIMATED GO:':: PRIVATE TOTAL SHS SHS SHS % OF TOTAL

~iAT IO~;AL ?OLYT:::CHNICS 14000 11900 2100 15% :'TIs 8040 lL590 3450 43% ~ARAM;EE INSTITUTES 14000 2800 11200 80% ":"OUTH ?OLYTECHN!C 4300 1300 2500 58%

Source: MTTAT staff.

University Education

2.22 The annual recurrent expenditure on tutuion per student at the

local public un1vers1ties is estimated by the MOE at an average of Shs

;ll.OO:. Throu.h ~he students loan scheme. University students are

~inanc1ng some 16.7% of their tution costs at the university. In

addit':'on, the students are loaned by the Government about Shs 18,480

per year to cover their expenses on food and accommodation and other

personal expenses. such as text books and other learning material.

Therefore the total annual recurrent costs per student at the four

public universi~ies amounts to Shs 72.480. comprising:

T~tion Shs 54.000 Feod and accommodation 10.395 Ocher personal student expenses 8,085 TOTAL Shs 72.480

2.23 the GOK funds all the development costs at the local public

universities. Therefore, private financing at the local public

universities is limited to the student repayment of the principal

29

private share of the ~os:s at the public universities is equivalent to

38% ~f t~e total recurre~: cos: •.

Tea;her ~rain·n.

2.2U Private and comr-~nity financin~ of teacher training takes the

form of fees paid by tne .tude~ts (trainees). The Government meets all

the development expenditure. and much of recurrent expenditure. In

1986 it was estimated t~at the annual recurrent trainee costs met by

the Government in the primary TTCs and the Diploma TTCs were

respectively about Shs 9.738 and Shs 33056.60. In addition. the

trainees were paying a~ annual average fees of Shs 1.265 at the

respective TTCs (8). It is understood that there hasn't been a major

revision of fees paid by trainees at the TTCs over the past two years.

On this basis, therefore. the current GOK and private financing of

recurrent costS per trainee at the TTCs is estimated at the levels

shown in Table 19.

TABLE 19: ANNUAL RECURRENT COSTS* PER TRAINEE AT TTCs

PRIMARY ~ DIPLOMA ~

SHS ~ SHS %

GOK CONTRIBUTION 10.987 84~ 37.308 96%

TRAINEE (PRIVATE)

CONTRIBUTION 2.032 ~ 1.428 ~

TOTAL 13.019 100% 38.736 100%

* Note: Cost figures have been adjusted to reflect current prices by applying the change in the middle income index of consumer prices for education in Nairobi between January 1986 and January 1989.

(8) PWP Interim Repqrt: C06t~sharing as a Method of Financing Education and Training in Kenya. November 1986.

http:33056.60

2.25 Table 20 provides comparative figures of GOK and pr"vate (and

COSeS of education per student at the various levels of

education. A-: Pre-primary. Primary. Secondary. Youth Poly-:echnic and

Har~bee Institutes of Technology (HITS) institutions. s;:::-ivate and

pare~tal contribution is more than GOK financing. At the Teacher

Training and National Polytechnic level. private and community

fina~cing is below 20% of the total costs, and the situation is in fact

not much different at the university level where private financing by

way of students loans advanced by GOK is not yet a reality because of

the high default iate on repayments. Furthermore, at these levels of

higher education the proportion of parental and community financing

would drop considerably. to levels generally below 10%. if GOK

contribution to development costs were incorporated into the figures

provided in Table 20. Clearly therefore. GOK provides substantial

financing subsidies to the higher levels of education.

2.26 The Sessional Paper Number 6 of 1988 envisages reduced GOK share

of financing at the higher levels of education by expanding the

students loan scheme to cover students in institutions other than the

universities. However, unless more effective measures than currently

prevailing are put into place for the enforcement of the loans

repayment by the students. the share of private and community financing

at the higher levels of education will remain effectivelY at a very low

level.

31

TABLE 20: COM?ARAT:'iE FIGURES OF GOK AND PRIVATE COSTS ON EDUCA7_0N

PER STU!:':::NT AT THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF EDUCATION

G.QK PRIVATE TOTAL

SHS % SHS % SHS %

Pre-\?rimary (Low cost) 13 2% 610 95% 623 100%

Primary 9U6 U4% 1.194 56% 2.14C 100%

Secondary 2.015 27% 5.451 73% 7.466 100%

Vocationa~ & Technical

- Youth Polytechnics 1,800 U2% 2.500 58% 4.300 100%

- TTIs 4.590 57% 3.U50 43% 8.040 100%

- HITs 2.800 20% 11.200 80% 14.000 100%

National Polytechnics* 11.900 85% 2.100 15% 14.000 100%

Teacher Training

- Primary TTCs* 10.967 84% 2.032 16% 13.019 100%

- Dip~oma TTCs* 37.308 96% 1.428 .. % 38.736 100%

- University* U5.000 62% 27.4Bo 38% 72.UBo 100%

* Note: Figures against the mark do not include GOK develo\?ment costs.

32

III FINANCIAL IMP~ICATICSS QE IRE PROPOSED fROGRAMMATIC CHANG~S

Introduction

3.1 The implementation c= the GOK policy measures outlined in the

Sessional Paper Number 6 of 1988 will require the Government,

private individuals and communities to provide si~nificant

additional financial resources to some levels of education. It is

however antiCipated that efticiency improvements and cost-sharin~

measures will minimize the overall bud~etary implications for the

Government. This chapter ~rovides indicative fi~ures of the &mounts

involved in the implementation of the key measures outlined in the

Sessional Paper.

3.2 There is no hard and accurate data on costs and units of

measure to apply in costin~ the various policy measures on education

Therefore, to postulate on the assumptions and derive cost estimates.

a comparative framework of alternative scenarios is adopted. The

base case is the current pro~rammes scenario, which assumes a

continuation of past policies and trends in the expansion of the

education system, and in the GOK allocation of financial resources

to each level of education. In the alternative, new programmes

scenario. the policy measures outlined in the Sessional Paper are

interpreted in financial terms by aSSOCiating each such measure with

Quantitative chan~es in either inputs or outputs for each level of

the education system.

fre-frimar¥ Education

3.3 The Sessional Paper outlined policy measures to improve the

Quality, stren~then the overall manaaement and expand the pre-primary

level of education. The PWP report indicated that in 1987 only some

27% of the 2.U million children eli~ible for pre-primary education

33

(i.e 3-5 year olds) were a~tending school. The PWP projecced ~hat

by the year 2000. ~here will be about 3.6 million children eligible

for pre-primary eduction, and recommended that the GOK encourages

local authorities. communities, parents. private organisations and

sponsors to establish more pre-primary schools so tha~ by the year

2000, every Kenyan child aged 3 to 5 years has access to pre-primarY

education. It is the prospect of expandin~ the enrolment capacity

of the pre-primary schools by at least four times over the

next decade that has the most financial si~nificance. The Sessional

Paper does not envisage that any GOK resources will be allocated to

the expansion of the pre-primary facilities. Therefore, all the

additional development and much of the recurrent resourCes associated

with expansion will be borne by the private sector.

3.4 For the analysis of financial implications in the current

pro~rammes scenario, it is assumed that the present relatively low

enrolment in pre-primary schools of eli~ible children will persist

well beyond the year 2000. Then only 27% of the eligible 3 to 5

years old will be enrolled in school. In this scenario. the total

recurrent costs required between 1990 and 2000 for the pre-primary

education are estimated at Kenya Pounds 142.3 million. GOK share

of this recurrent costs will be about Kenya pounds 6.8 million

(equivalent to only 4.8%) of the recurrent costs (Table 21. see

Appendix Table A3.1A for more details).

3.5 The new programmes scenario as implied by the implementation of

the Sessional Paper is characterised by a relatively much higher

enrolment of 3 to 5 years olds in pre-primary schools, entailing

hi~h levels of both development and recurrent expenditure by parents,

private institutions and communities. In this scenario, 92% of the

3.610.231 eligible children in the year 2000 will be attending pre

34

primary school ~hich number is ~ore than three times that e~visabed in the curpent prc&ramme scenaric. In the new ;rbgrammes sce~ario.

total recurrent costs are projected at d total development =cats at an add:

TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATI0NS PRE-PRIMARY Er~CATI0N

(Kenya Pounds 'OOOs

CURRENT SCENARIO NEW SCENARIO CCST SAVINGS COSTS COSTS ',ADDITIONS)

1990/2000 1990/2000 :?90/2000

BECIlBBll.;In: CQ:3I:3 GOK PRIVATE COSTS TOTAL-ALL RECURRENT

DE~ELQEl:1EHI CQ:3IS GOK PRIVATE & COMMUNITY

TOTAL -RECURRENT & DEVELOPMENT

% GOK CONTRIBUTION

6.759 1.35.586 142.345

NIL 1.70,738

313.084

2.16%

12.927 270,690 283.606

NIL 340.869

624,475

2.07%

(6.1.57) (1.35.1.03) (1u1,261)

NIL (170,130)

(311.391)

Pounds 340.9 million. No GOK financin~ of development costs is

anticipated. and its share of recurrent costs are estimated at

about 4.6% only. Therefore, overall GOK financing in support of pre-

primary education under either scenario is some 2% of the total

programme costs (Table 21, see Appendix Table A3.1 for details).

Pr1marY Education

3.6 The key featUres of the policy measures outlined in the Sessional

Paper for Primary education are-:

o ensurin~ that the growth in primary school enrol~ent keeps

pace with the rate of population ~rowth. This measure is

recommended in the PWP report in the context of the fact

that there has been virtual stagnation in new primary

enrolment, at standard one class, over the past few years;

35

http:1.35.1.03

o that the GOK will evntually cease to subsidize coardin~

costs in the 178 primary boardin. schools;

o the GOK will improve on its supply of science fa~ilities.

equipment an= materials to primary schools;

o there will be a crash programme to reduce the current

backlo~ of untrained teachers;

o there will be improved utilisation of teaching resources

through the closure of low enrolment classes and schools

resulting in a higher pupil-teacher ratio; and

o the parents. private sector and non-~overnmental

organisations will continue to provide for the development

of physical facilities such as classrooms. workshops and

libraries. and the provision of readin~ materials. uniforms

and other recurrent costs.

3.7 The current programmes scenario adopted for the financial

anaLysis assumes that enrolment will keep in pace with the rate of

population growth. and that there would be growth in recurrent and

development resources from both the GOK and the private sector to

match the rate of growth of enrolment. Under this scenario. it is

projected that Kenya Pounds 4.470.2 million of GOK resources. and

about Kenya Pounds 1.737.5 million of private and community resources

will be required to finance recurrent expenditures, GOK financing for

development costs will be a total of Kenya Pounds 2.43 million only

(Table 22). However. private developmet expenditure will remain high

to sustain the projected growth in pupil enrolment. Therefore, the

total annual private expenditure on development costs is projected to

increase by some 53% between 1989 and 2000. from Kenya Pounds 286.3

million to Kenya Pounds 4.39.3 million.

36

TABLE 22: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - PRIMARY EDUCATION (Amounts in Ken¥a Pounds OOOs)

CURRENT SCENARIO TOTAL 1990/2000

RECURRENT COSTS; GOK EXPENDITURE Cost o~ Teachers 1.1..022.028 Milk Scheme 389.739 School Equipment & Supplies 25.998 Boardin~ Schools Costs 32.1.1.65 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ; ~ 4.470.229

PRIVATE EXPENDITURE Fees for tuition 37.1.1.57 Provision of readin~ Materials 728.687 Boardin~ Costs 37.116

Other school activities 261.580 Uniforms & Personal expenses 672.631.1.

TOTAL PRIvATE EXPENDITURE 1. 734. 473

TOTAL - PUBLIC &

PRIVATE - EXPENDITURE 1).207.703

" PRIVATE 28.0"

NEW SCENARIO TOTAL 1990/2000

3.547.613 389.739 597.897

1.1..900 4.540.149

37.457

728.687 1.1.0.11.1.0

261.580 672.631.1.

1. 740.498

6.280.646 27.7"

COST SAVINGS (ADDITIonal)

1.1.64.415 o

(571.899) 27.565

(69.919)

o

o (3.021.1.)

o o

(3.024)

(72.91.1.Ll)

DEVELOPMENT COSTS GOK EXPENDITURE Construction & Equipment KSES Crash Pro~ramme ~or Voc. Teachers TOTAL :. G.QK TOTAL :. PRIvATE*

TOTAL GOK & PRIVATE " PRIVATE

2.239 190

2·429 4.002.173

4.004.602 99.9"

2.239 190

(7.925) 10.354

4,002.123

4.012.526 99.7%

0 0

(7.925) (2,925l

0

(7.925)

* NOTE: Private development expenditure for construction of new classrooms. workshops and libraries is estimated on the basis of per capita contribution because it was not ~easible to disa~~re~ate b~tween the different cost items.

37

http:72.91.1.Llhttp:37.1.1.57http:32.1.1.65

3.8 In this current scenario. ~rowth in the number of teachers

and. therefore the total remuneration. will exceed the anticipated

growth in the other recurrent expenditure items because the

pupil-teacher ratio is assumed to remain at the current level

of 33.3. In this context. it is a si~nificant feature that

by the year 2000. some 13% of the teachers in the primary schools. a

total of 2u9.300, will be untrained. Consequently. in this scenario.

the percenta~e of private to the total recurrent expenditure on

primary education will decline from the current estimated 32.U% to

25.1% by the year 2000 (see Appendix Table A3.2).

3.9 The new pro~rammes scenario anticipates the implementation of

the measures outlined in para~raph 3.6 above. A major assumption

deriVed for this scenario includes a ~radual 5% ~18e-1n the pup11

teacher ratio trom the current 33.3 to 46.9 b¥ the ¥ear 1996. atter

which this will remain constant. As a result of this assumption, the

total number of primary school teachers required by the year 2000

under this scenario will be 182.300 (Appendix Table A3.3).

38

3.10 Under the new pro~rammes scenario. the country will be self-

sufficient with trained teachers by the year 1994. (see Appendix

Table A3.3. memo items). The Government will therefore.

implementin~ measures for more cost effective utilisation of

teachers ~enerate cost savin~s estimated at a total of Kenya Pounds

U74.U million between 1990 and 2000 (Table 22). In the new

pro~rammes scenario. the GOK will also realize cost savin~s

estimated at Kenya Pounds 27.6 million between 1990 and 2000 by

passin~ over to the parents and local communities the non-tuition costs

of boardin~ primary school costs.

3.1l. In this scenario, it is also anticipated that GOK funds

freed throu~h ~!f!,,~,_I

o the Government will provide adeQuate facilites and

eQuipment for the proper teachinK of science;

o there will be increased participation of the private sector

and non-Kovernmental orKanisations in the provision of

secondary school facilities.

Cost projections under the alternative (current and new)

proKramme scenarios are shown in detail at Appendix Tables A3.4 and

A3.5. The summary of financial implications is provided in Table 23

AS shown in this table. comparinK the two scenarios;

o the GOK will realize savinKs in recurrent expenditure under

the new prOKrammes scenario estimated at a total of Kenya

Pounds 497.3 million durinK the 1990-2000 period. comprisinK-:

sav:!.?~,:.;;..e£!iJ~~~1:~~;r;>t-~s"",~enya pounds 249.8

million) because it is assumed that, by the year 2000,

the private sector will cattu· ~Cl!' .0"'. 23. 6" o~,t:he

total secondary schools enrolment. thereby reducinK by

some 15% GOK costs on the teaching force. Furthermore.

under the current prOKrammes scenario. it is assumed

that the student teacher ratio will improve to the

~.>J!~~:.;~,~;,;~!.;~~~,,~;.;-~,~ J.~.':H{·~!I"'?~.,,~~~~,,:c.~:abo~ 1~ and as ·-~·i·"w'''''·~}':>(~~...",,:.:> .... ~''''''·''':',;>

SECOND~-y EDUCATION

j:;:ECUF:F:EtH ,-:OS"[ S GO 1

o the private sector will share an added ~inancia1 burden

uhe new pro~rammes scenario estimated at a total o~

Kenya Pounds 235.4 million ~or the period 1990 - 2000.

The additional costs will be in the ~orm o~ student ~ees

in private secondary schools (Kenya Pounds 29.7 million) and

boardin~ costs passed on to parents and communities (Kenya

Pounds 205.7 million).

3.15 In the new pro~rammes scenario. it is also anticipated that

the Government will incur additional costs o~ shs 500.000 ~or every

existin~ unassited public school to provide ~or laboratories and science

equipment. amountin~ to an estimated total cost o~ Kenya Pounds 182.7

million. Parents and local communities would also be expected to

invest additional resources. estimated at Kenya Pounds 183.4 million.

to provide ~or workshops and libraries in the secondary schools.

3.16 Overall. the Government would realize net savin~s projected to

amount to Kenya Pounds 313.9 million while the private sector will

incur an additional net expenditure o~ Kenya Pounds 300 million

(Table 23)

Vocational ~ Teghnica1 EdUcation

3.17 The Sessional Paper has ~iven special emphasis to the

development o~ vocational and technical education. The new MTTAT is

there~ore very actively involved in plannin~ ~or improvements in

Vocational and technical education institutions. 1. e . ..outW'·!'t;n:l...k..~ " • - 'C. _ ; •• :. '

secondary schoolS). H......Q..,;:.,t,ft••~""i~... 'Qf'" ••obftelolD" (HITS',. the . ,,' :,' ~',ki~-:-;,,·!""'-~"'....- ..·~........''':;.~r...'~... _'."~'i":;. -, ',~--.~", --'1:' ';;' ,_," .

Kenv.>·::t'1iJlW1••1"~·"'••eh."· Col..l••• · O

Kisumu. Nakuru. Kakame~a. Thika and Nyeri. The new pro~rammes

scenario for the ana1ysis of financia1 imp1ications of the

imp1imentation of the Sessiona1 Paper is therefore conceptua1ised around

the followin~ preliminary pro~ramme p1s bV MTTAT-:

o a five phase pro~ramme for the improvement and

rehabi1itation of the 322 (out of a tota1 of525) youth

p01ytechnics currently assisted by the ~overnment. The

tota1 cost of this four year (1990-1993) pro~ramme is

Kshs 89 mi11ion. The new pro~rammes scenario assumes

that this Government pro~ramme wi11 be further extended to

the remainin~ 203 community sponsored youth p01ytechnics

o a pro~ramme for rehabi1itation and eQuipin~ the existin~

19 technical trainin~ institutes (TTIs) at a tota1 cost

of Kshs 608 mi11ion. It is a1so proposed to have another

23 TTIs. each to cater for a district;

o the expansion of KTTC and the national p01ytechnics so

that by 1993 they can offer de~ree courses, in particu1ar.

Bache10r of Technolo~y.

3.18 Harambee Insitutes of Techn010~y (HITS) are however not expected

to receive GOK support in excess of what is a1ready planned for. as

indicated in the Governments Draft Foward Bud~ets. 1990 - 992.

3.19 Under the current pro~rammes scenario. it is estimated that

GOK recurrent and development costs for the period 1990-2000 wi11

be Kenya Pounds 221.8 mi11ion and Kenya Pounds 21.8 mi11ion

respectively (Tab1e 24, see also Appendix tab1e A3.6 for details).

Under the new pro~rammes scenario. the comparative GOK cost fi~ures

are Kenya pounds 190.9 mi11ion and Kenya pounds 230.4 mi1lion for

recurrent and development costs respectively (Table 24. see a1so

43

T~8LE 24:SUMMARY O~ FIN~NLIHL IMPLICHTIONS- VOCATIONAL &TECHNICHL

f;:ECURREr-lr LOST S Gen:. ExPEND! TURE MfTAT Admln Overhead fTTC ,Jr:,cA T ELDDf..:ET f'OLY M[)1'18ASH PULl