Search

There have been numerous studies on emerging low-fee private schools in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in the last 20 years. Those who support such schools insist that they meet the diverse needs of the poor and that the poor are able to access and choose a preferred school. They also state that these schools can contribute to education for all goals. In contrast, those who oppose the heavy reliance on such schools counterargue that these schools cannot meet the needs of the most vulnerable as they basically have no access to such fee-charging schools. These opponents also underscore that the private provision of education is based on demand. Accordingly, such schools are limited in terms of geographical coverage. The purpose of this paper is to rethink these arguments. The paper particularly focuses on the supply-side in order to re-examine the role of government and non-government provision of education. For this reason, a case study was conducted and school data were collected from 20 unrecognized schools and one public school in Mathare in Nairobi, Kenya, between 2018 and 2020. Findings show that unrecognized schools are struggling to provide quality education in terms of financial and human resources. While the government officially does not recognize them, it contributes to their presence as the government is aware of their important role in meeting not only learning but basic needs in such areas as housing, clothing, and meals. Thus, it adopts double standards in reality. The study also found that public schools gained more pupils in the upper classes as pupils transferred from unrecognized schools to government schools in order to gain better access to secondary education. The paper argues that the Kenyan government needs to recognize these schools and support their management as there are tens of thousands of pupils who study in them without the fundamental support of the government. Yet, it is these schools that meet the diverse needs of the poor and vulnerable in place of the government., 本研究は、JSPS 科学研究費補助金（18H03661）「途上国の前期中等教育開発における政策 - 実践連携に関する国際比較研究」（基盤研究 A,2018-2022, 吉田和浩教授代表（広島大学））、JSPS 科学研究費補助金(19H00620)「アフリカ・アジア諸国における教育の普遍化と格差に関する国際比較研究」（基盤研究 A,2019-2023 年度 , 澤村信英教授代表（大阪大学））、および、JSPS 科学研究費補助金（18K02423）「ケニアの公立小学校の空洞化と低学費私立小学校の増加－多様化と基準化のせめぎ合い－」（基盤研究 C, 2018-2022, 大塲麻代（帝京大学））の助成を受けて実施したものである。

This paper investigates how well teachers understand Kenya’s policy of inclusive education and explores the dilemma they face between the principle and practice. Previous studies have shown that teachers are the key for the implementation of inclusive education. While the Kenyan government shows her commitment to inclusive education, the extent of her support for teachers on the ground are not well known. The study was conducted in Nairobi and Marsabit in 2016/17 for a total of four weeks. The study utilizes data collected from 20 schools using questionnaires administered for 200 teachers, semi-structured interviews with 20 head/deputy teachers and one focus group discussion with six teachers. In addition, the study interviewed officials in each county. The fi ndings have revealed that teachers do not fully understand the policy of inclusive education due to the lack of adequate training opportunities. Furthermore, teachers express the dilemma between the principle and the practice of implementing inclusive education. While the government has enacted the policy of inclusive education, it has created a dilemma for schools regarding whether to continue admitting children with disabilities because it is their right or to resist due to inadequate school environment, including teachers’ capacity. This paper recommends a deeper refl ection on the operationalization of the policy of inclusive education, particularly regarding community sensitization, teacher training and school funding.

Nowadays, low-fee private (LFP) primary schools are proliferating in the slums of urban areas in developing countries. It is believed that these schools can help to achieve Education for All by 2015. Although previous research has compared schools in slums with those situated beyond their borders, or gauged the relative merits of public and private schools in relation to school choice, few studies have made direct comparisons between schools situated within the same slum. The present study assessed the aspects of slum schools that contribute to school choice. It examined this by comparing 13 LFP schools in Kibera, the biggest slum in Kenya, to identify why some schools have more pupils than others. The survey findings show that schools with lower fees, demonstrably higher performance in the primary leaving examination, and free lunches attract more pupils than those that can only boast one or two of these attributes. The study also found that whether or not the school was officially registered with the Ministry of Education was not as important as the aforementioned factors. The study concludes that there are variations among slum schools and that slum dwellers invariably choose the school that is perceived to perform well. However, further study is necessary to identify why some schools with high fees and low performance still attract some slum children.

At the beginning of 2008, the Government of Kenya abolished secondary school fees in order to ensure expanded access for primary school leavers. In the context of this significant change in policy, this paper examines the extent to which the abolition of secondary school fees increased access for children who had been previously denied their access. For this to be examined, the study firstly identified 109 primary school leavers who had completed primary school between 2004 and 2006 but had not enrolled in any further education institutions (secondary school or youth polytechnics). The study then traced them after the abolition of school fees in order to examine their responses to the policy. The study found that fewer than one in five leavers went on to secondary school because of the diminished school fees. The study, however, revealed that 20 leavers were still unable to access secondary school due to ancillary costs involved in ‘free' secondary education. Further, many of the leavers were in fact interested in learning at vocational training centers. By integrating surveys with multiple interviews, the paper explores the reason why the new policy did not necessarily lead to improved access for primary school leavers in the study.