The Effect of Cost-sharing Policy on the Dropout Rates of Public Secondary School Students in Limuru District,Kenya

Abstract

The qualitative case study explores the effect of cost-sharing policy on the dropout rates of students in public secondary schools in the Limuru district, Kenya. Interviews were conducted with students who returned to school after they had raised money for tuition, teachers serving on the school district committee and the head teachers. The cost-sharing policy was viewed as a burden that has increased dropout, repetition and absenteeism in schools. Children from poor backgrounds continue to be marginalised as some national schools charge exorbitant school fees. Based on the findings the study offers some recommendations for policy-makers to consider.

Keywords

Cost-sharing secondary school education dropout impact Kenya

Introduction

The genesis of cost-sharing in public education can be traced from the 1980s when the structural adjustment in programmes (SAPs) propagated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Kenya occurred against a background of the country’s declining economic performance and increasing levels of poverty (Burnett, 2010; Orodho, 2002; Republic of Kenya, 1997). To make matters worse, the SAPs further contributed to the economic recession resulting in the government of the Republic of Kenya reducing per capita expenditure on education among other social services (Republic of Kenya, 1999). The consequence was the introduction of cost-sharing policy at all levels of education in Kenya. The adoption of a cost-sharing policy in education has witnessed the return to communities and parents of a substantial proportion of responsibility for schooling. The implementation of the cost-sharing policy officially marked the end of ‘free’ and highly subsidised education by government. However, the implementation of the cost-sharing policy has mainly affected the poor because they cannot afford the cost of secondary education, which is beyond the reach of not only the poor but also the middle income families (Martim, 2008). Odada and Odhiambo (2008), commenting on the cost-sharing in Kenya, noted that high fees have been charged to a level that is prohibitive for the poor, causing the enrolment rate to fall due to the rising dropout rate in secondary education.

Many factors, such as the high cost of secondary education (the average annual unit cost of secondary education is five times higher than primary education) and poverty, with an estimated 30% dropout rate from this factor alone are believed to have contributed to the decline in secondary school enrolment over the last decade. Other factors are the high cost of learning and teaching materials, school uniforms and transport, and development levies. In addition, the cost of secondary education in boarding schools is higher than that of day schools by more than 50% (Republic of Kenya, MOEST, 2005:44).

Given this scenario, it is assumed that if alternative funding strategies are not initiated, more students are likely to drop out of school due to the increasing costs of education. Therefore, the research on which this article is based, attempted to investigate the views of the schools’ stakeholders regarding the effect of the policy of cost-sharing on education in selected Kenyan secondary schools in the Limuru district. More specifically, the aim of this study was to capture the views of school stakeholders about causes of dropout rates among secondary school students.

The study aimed to provide information on the effect of the cost-sharing policy with regard to the allocation of education resources, especially to students with a poor background. It was hoped that the findings of this study would enlighten policy planners on possible strategies to finance secondary school education in Kenya. The research was based on and guided by literature reviews and the principles of classical liberal theory.

Relevant literature review

Definition of cost-sharing

Cost-sharing can be defined as an arrangement whereby the costs of the programme or project are shared by the parties involved, according to an agreed formula (Wambugu, 2012). Johnstone (2003), on the other hand, defines cost-sharing in education as a shift in the burden of higher education costs from being borne exclusively or predominantly by the government or tax payers to being shared with parents and students. Kiveu and Mayio (2009) sharing the same view, have defined cost-sharing as a situation in which the government, on the one hand, and households and communities, on the other, share the responsibility of financing education.

Effect of a cost-sharing policy on secondary education in Kenya

Njeru and Orodho (2003) note that the implementation of a cost-sharing policy has negatively impacted on the poor and vulnerable households. This is because parents have to shoulder an increasingly large portion of the cost. In their research study, Kiveu and Mayio (2009) found that cost-sharing has mainly affected the poor since they cannot afford the cost of the secondary education which is beyond their means. However, it does not affect only the poor but also middle income families. Apparently dropouts and the repetition of the school year as a phenomenon in Kenyan secondary schools has significantly contributed not only to unequal access to education and decreased quality of education but has also manifested an alarming aspect of wastage within the education system (Republic of Kenya, 1999; Pontefract and Hardman, 2005; Martim, 2008). As noted elsewhere in the government documents, household funding of secondary education takes on average 60% while government financing constitutes 40% of the aggregate financing (Republic of Kenya, 1999). To a large extent, the implementation of the cost-sharing policy at secondary school level gives leeway for schools to charge higher fees compared to the fee guidelines provided by the Ministry of Education Science and Technology.

Odada and Odhiambo (1989: 129) commenting on the effect of cost-sharing in Kenya noted that fees charged were at a level prohibitively high for the poor, causing enrolment rates to fall as well and raising the number of dropouts. Kenyan secondary schools fall into three categories: fully government funded, district day (‘harambee’) and private. Furthermore, government funded schools are divided into national, provincial and district levels. Government funded schools select students based on scores achieved in their previous examinations or grades. Students with the highest scores will automatically gain admission into national schools while those with average scores are selected into provincial and district schools. District day schools accept students with lower scores. Therefore, pupils work hard in primary schools with the hope of attaining high marks to secure them a place in one of the 18 national schools in the country. Tuition fees charged in national schools are sometimes two or three times higher than tuition fees charged in district schools. As a result, pupils from poor backgrounds admitted into national schools are left out as they cannot afford the fees charged in these schools. Many children from poor families perform well in Kenya Certificate Primary Education (KCPE) and are admitted to national schools, but then are locked out due to their inability to pay the high fees. Although a cost-sharing policy was introduced for genuine economic reasons, high poverty levels in households are very pervasive. Therefore, financing education through a cost-sharing policy could be one of the major problems facing secondary education in Kenya (Kiveu and Mayio, 2009: 274). This situation might be the root cause of increased dropouts, absenteeism and repetition in secondary schools. In the same study it was reported by some teachers that absenteeism leads to poor performance, which, in turn, leads to a repetition of the school year which overburden the parents who are made to incur extra costs. These costs lead to inefficiency in the sense that the students take more than the required minimum number of years to graduate.

In the cost-sharing strategy, the government finances education administration and professional services, while communities, parents and sponsors provide physical facilities, books and supplementary readers, stationery and other consumables. Poor students who are not identified by any sponsor end up losing their places in secondary schools, or join but later drop out of school due to lack of school fees. Students who fail examinations or those whose parents cannot afford secondary school fees either repeat the final school year or pursue technical training opportunities. A number of students also drop out of school by choice due to poor scores. A study carried out by Kiveu and Mayio (2009: 278) reveals that the fees and other related direct costs have become too high for parents to afford given their low average incomes. Therefore, some may not be able to keep their children in school, especially at secondary level. According to Miruka, Akinyi and Mangoa (2009), five students from Nyanza Province who were admitted to a national school could not report because of lack of school fees. Access to public secondary schools and universities by the poor has remained elusive despite government efforts to ensure equity in provision of education (Martim, 2008). Martim argues that despite a tuition waiver in secondary school, children from poor backgrounds have continued to be marginalised as some national school charges are in excess of Kshs 60,000 annually. According to KNEC Analysis Report (2012), dropout rates in 2009 in Kenyan secondary schools registered 41.3% for boys and 51.5% for girls.

Conceptual underpinning of the study

The study was based on the principles of classical liberal theory which state that social mobility will be promoted through equal opportunity to education. The roots of this theory can be traced back to Rousseau (1712–1778) who claimed that in the ‘natural’ state men were born equal and personal qualities should not jeopardise social equality as long as society rewards people according to their merits (Boyd, 1956). The writers of the American Declaration of Independence claimed that all men are created equal in the sense that they are born with the same moral and political rights. It follows from this belief that social institutions, such as education, should, in some sense, attempt to treat people equally. The American educator, Horace Mann (1796–1890) referred to education as the great equaliser. Evidence in favour of this belief is mainly in the form of case studies. There are numerous examples of people from poor families who have taken advantage of educational opportunities and proceeded to obtain better jobs and higher incomes than they would otherwise have done. If the state had not provided education free of charge, these individuals would have been denied the opportunity for advancement. There is a widespread belief that by removing economic barriers and making more places available in upper secondary and higher education institutions, and by increasing the length of attendance in the common school, the ideal situation could be created to implement a vision of equal opportunity in which everybody has access to the kind and amount of education suited to his/her inherited capacity. In the past, a great deal of weight has been attached to education as a tool to bring about greater equality and it has generally been assumed that increased spending in education will contribute to this end, as it will reduce dropout rates, repetition of a school year and absenteeism among the poor (OECD, 1975). In developing countries, where inequalities with regard to educational provision are severe, it may be desirable, for the sake of equity and efficiency, to pursue the goal of equal distribution of educational opportunities. Inequality of participation means that the benefits of education are disproportionately enjoyed, with the children of comparatively wealthier families far more likely to complete secondary school or to enrol in higher education (Psacharopoulos and Woodhall, 1985), while poor families may not be able to afford to financially support their children through school, hence the propensity for higher dropout rates, absenteeism and repetition. These challenges also have an effect on the daily operations of public secondary schools.

In Kenya, the government has been subsidising education to enable more people to participate in education. However, with the introduction of the cost-sharing policy, and in the context of the existing poverty levels in the country and the rising cost of education, many parents may not be able to afford to enrol their children in a secondary school or to financially support their children through their secondary school education. Therefore, when taking into consideration equity, it is practically impossible to ignore the fact that unequal participation in education will, in the long run, worsen the status of the poor and vulnerable groups. The classical liberal theory therefore, is relevant to this study as it was found that the cost-sharing policy discriminates against poor families who cannot afford to keep their children in school or to enrol their children at schools of their own choice.

Research method and design

Mouton (2001) defines a research design as a plan or blueprint of how the researcher intends to conduct the research with the purpose of actualisation of the aims of the study. Sharing the same view, Best and Kahn (2009) define research designs as plans and procedures for research that span the decisions from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection and analysis. In this study, a qualitative research design was used in order to establish the participants’ perceptions, attitudes, understanding, knowledge, values, feelings and experiences about the phenomenon under study. A qualitative approach was relevant for this particular study as the researcher spent some time in the field (schools in this case) collecting relevant data. However, the aim of the researcher was not to generalise the findings to all other similar schools in the Limuru district, but to provide objective information peculiar to these schools.

Geographical location of the study

Geographically, the Republic of Kenya lies on the east coast of Africa, bordering Somalia to the east, South Sudan and Ethiopia to the north, Tanzania to the south, and Uganda to the west. The Republic of Kenya has a population of approximately 41 million people (World Bank, 2011). The country covers an area of approximately 582,646 km². Kenya obtained independence from Britain in 1963. The official language is English and the national communication language is Kiswahili. The bulk of the Kenyan economy is based on agriculture and tourism, which when combined, contributes a third of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, the agricultural sector employs about ⅔ of the population either directly or indirectly (UNESCO, 2005; World Bank, 2011).

The context of the study

The study was carried out in the Limuru district as previously indicated. The rationale for choosing the Limuru district was that the unemployment rate in this area is very high and there are high incidences of secondary school dropout. In addition, the researcher had an interest in and knowledge of the area. According to Singleton (1993), the ideal setting for the study is one that is directly related to the researcher’s interest. He further points out that the setting should be easily accessible to the researcher and that it should allow for immediate rapport with the participants.

Sample and sampling procedure

This research used purposeful sampling. MacMillan and Schumacher (2006) indicate that to achieve authenticity in research reports, one has to focus on purposeful sampling as this reduces any chances of invalidity. In contrast to probabilities sampling, purposeful sampling selects information-rich cases for in-depth study. The researcher in this case purposefully targeted a group of people believed to be reliable participants for the study (Kombo and Tromp, 2006). The research was carried out at two schools (one, a national boarding school and the other a district day school) in the Limuru district. The participants were students who returned to school after they had raised money for tuition, teachers serving on the school district committee and the head teacher. This cohort of people provided valuable information which enriched the study.

Data collection

The main data collection tools were individual and focus group interviews. Qualitative in-depth interviews are noted more for their probes and pauses than their particular question format (MacMillan and Schumacher, 2006). Topics were outlined in advance. Structured, as well as some open-ended, questions were asked. In a bid to enhance the validity of the data collected, interviews were recorded on audiotape and the tapes were later transcribed. This process was sanctioned by the participants beforehand. Furthermore, piloting was done to help the researcher discover any weaknesses in the research design/instrument and to get any useful suggestions on how to improve the research question. The data collection for the pilot study was carried out in two other schools, which were not part of the final study.

Findings and discussions

Data were gathered from the head teachers to establish factors that influenced high dropout rates of students in public secondary schools in the Limuru district. The findings are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Head teachers’ views on causes of dropout.

From Figure 1 it can be concluded that school fees contributed to a high number of dropouts. All the head teachers interviewed (100%) indicated that the cost-sharing policy was the main cause of the high dropout rate witnessed in secondary schools in the Limuru district. ‘The government was having difficulties in financing education and, that leads to high school fees’ stated one head teacher. Other causes cited by the head teachers included pregnancy (50%), indiscipline (50%), transfer (50%) and family decisions (50%). The findings of the current study concur with those of Kiveu and Mayio (2009: 274) who observed that the cost-sharing policy might be the cause of increased dropout, absenteeism and repetition in secondary schools in Kenya. These authors attributed the high dropout rates to poverty, among other factors. In one school it was reported that parents would make arrangements with the head teacher for the payment of fees. However, it emerged that some parents did not honour their pledges and so the head teacher was forced to send the students out of class, especially when the amounts outstanding accumulated. In some cases, this resulted in dropout since the parents could not pay the outstanding tuition fees. Similarly, when a student was frequently sent home due to non-payment of school fees, his/her performance was affected and when advised to repeat, he/she simply dropped out of school because the parents could not afford the fee. The study by Kiveu and Mayio (2009: 274) on the impact of the cost-sharing policy on the internal efficiency of public secondary schools reported that some teachers had observed that absenteeism led to poor performance. This led to repetition that overburdened the parents who were made to incur extra costs.

As far as classical liberal theory is concerned, the poor (who are the majority in Kenya) are being discriminated against, especially in regard to access to education because of their inability to afford the costs of education. Therefore, for equity consideration, it practically becomes impossible for the government of Kenya to ignore the fact that unequal participation in education will in the long run worsen the status of the poor or the vulnerable groups. This calls for intervention strategies by the government to address inequity in access to education.

The researchers sought to find out the teachers’ views on the causes of dropout. The teachers’ responses are indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Teachers’ views on causes of dropout.

It is clear from Figure 2 that school fees played a considerable role in dropout rates. Almost 92% of teachers felt that the school fees contributed to the dropout rate. Other factors were pregnancy (46%), indiscipline (27%), being orphaned (23%), attitude (12%), peer pressure (8%) and family decisions (8%). During focus group interviews, some teachers commented as follows: ‘The implementation of cost-sharing policy at secondary schools had promoted absenteeism among students and had created room for corruption where some schools requested for more school fees than was indicated in the guidelines provided by the government, thereby increasing the cost of secondary education.’ The findings of the current study concur with the findings of Martim (2008) who observed that the implementation of the cost-sharing policy at secondary school level created a leeway for schools to charge higher fees compared to the fee guidelines provided by the Ministry of Education Science and Technology, while various categories of schools charged different amounts of school fees, all of which are unmanageable for some parents, especially the poor.

Although school fees seemed to be a major contributory factor to dropout rates, the respondents felt that the government still had an important role to play in ensuring that all students had access to secondary education. Some suggested that the government should increase the education budget to include boarding and uniform fees for needy students, make secondary education free and compulsory for bright students from poor backgrounds, and enhance the bursary scheme so that it is more effective in helping needy and vulnerable students. One school teacher observed that the schools were managed by a board of governors which was not in touch with the day-to-day learning of the school and, since they are not paid for the services they offer to schools, governors may lack the commitment that is needed. This teacher felt that if the government employed professionals at district levels to be in charge of all the schools in their jurisdiction, this would not only improve the school academic performance but would ensure that all deserving children get access to education. The respondents agreed on the fact that if the government made secondary education free, this would be a better way of identifying the needy and vulnerable. Furthermore, it would be easier to help them in school rather than elsewhere, for instance, at home. And if such cases are not given attention, the children might become involved in child labour.

The researchers also conducted interviews with the students who had missed classes because they could not pay the school fees. The findings are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Duration of absence from school.

Regarding the period the that students stayed at home after being sent home for non-payment of fees, 40% of the respondents indicated that they had stayed at home for less than a week, i.e. three or four days; 27% of the students indicated that they had stayed at home for one week; 23% of the respondents indicated that they had stayed at home for two weeks and 10% of the student respondents indicated that they had stayed at home for three weeks. These findings concur with Nag (1997) who asserts that many poor families in Kenya cannot afford to buy school uniform, meet transport expenses for their children and pay school fees in addition to other direct costs of education. As a result they keep their children at home.

The researcher also discovered that the students who had been sent home because they could not pay the school fees adopted different measures to recover the lost time. Some of the respondents indicated that they had sought assistance from other students, while others indicated that they had sought assistance from the teachers for extra tuition. However, all the respondents indicated that they had been unable to make up for the lost time when they were out of school. The students who had stayed out of school for a long period of time recorded a decline in performance and this resulted in despondency and low self-esteem.

The researcher also discovered that there were different ways through which money was raised to enable the students to return to school. The findings revealed that some of the methods employed included contributions by family members. Some students said that their parents paid from their salaries and they were able to go back to school after one, two or three weeks. Other students reported helping their parents to pick tea on the tea estates in order to raise school fees, while yet others indicated that they went back to school even though they were unable to raise the school fees. The school principal of two of the respondents said that the students had found some benefactors to sponsor them. The findings concur with those of Penrose (1998) who observed that children in Ghana collect money from parents and relatives to pay fees, and there appears to be a less direct financial relationship between parents and schools than in other countries. Penrose further noted that those children also received money from several sources: 44% reported receiving money from parents; 28% from the father only; 14% from the mother only; and 9% from other relatives. It is clear that the fees charged in schools were higher than many seemingly poor parents could afford. This caused a decline in the enrolment rate.

Conclusion

According to Education for All (EFA, 2000) secondary education is part of basic education in Kenya. Failure to provide basic education seriously compromises a country’s effort to reduce poverty. This also implies that the millennium development goal of providing basic education to all by the year 2015 has not been realised. Basic education of acceptable quality is crucial in equipping disadvantaged individuals with the means to contribute to and benefit from economic growth. Education is one of the most powerful instruments societies have for reducing deprivation and vulnerability. It helps lift the health of parents and children, reduces fertility and child mortality and affords the disadvantaged a voice in society and the political system. Educational investments are crucial for sustained economic growth, which low-income countries are seeking to stimulate and without which long-term poverty reduction is impossible. Education directly contributes to worker productivity and can promote better management of natural resources and more rapid technological adaptation and innovation. The direct production of the critical mass of scientists and skilled workers that every country requires is fundamental to the creation of a competitive knowledge-based economy. Moreover, broad-based education is associated with faster diffusion of information within the economy, which is crucial for enabling workers and citizens in both traditional and modern sectors to increase productivity. Research has shown that nations in which most of the population is literate and in which all children complete at least a basic education have higher quality institutions, stronger democratic processes and consequently more equitable development policies. To achieve these in Kenya, the government should come up with financing policies that will enable a good percentage of Kenyans to complete at least the basic level of education.

In conclusion, the study recommends that the Kenyan government should establish the unit cost of secondary education and provide fee guidelines that are acceptable to all schools. Huge disparities were noted in levies charged by schools within the same category, even when they drew students from the same catchment area. Government must therefore review school needs on a regular basis to avoid the arbitrary setting of levies in public schools. Giving school managers too much discretion in this regard has the potential to hurt the academic interests of students from vulnerable backgrounds. Institutionalising mechanisms to regularly monitor financial operations in schools is the only way that unscrupulous managers can be brought to account for violating stipulated government policies. Furthermore, additional costs in the middle of the term or year should be avoided. School administrators should encourage the use of locally available teaching–learning materials, start income-generating activities and sensitise parents on their role in the provision of physical facilities and equipment in schools.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that government is stretched to the limits in its efforts to deliver education. Therefore more private investors should be encouraged through structured incentive systems to participate in the provision of education services to lessen pressure on the government in providing this important service. One way of raising demand for private education would be for government to give vouchers to students in private schools and require that such schools lower fees by a similar margin to attract more students. This may save the cost of putting up facilities to ease the congestion that is a defining feature of public schools. Such private providers are likely to free up space in public schools, lower student–teacher ratios and mitigate the inadequacy of other teaching and learning materials, as those who can afford quality private education relocate to private schools.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Jedidah Wambugu is secondary school teacher in the Limuru District, Republic of Kenya. She completed and obtained her Master’s Degree in 2012, specialising in education management at the University of South Africa. Her completed research project is titled “The impact of the policy of cost sharing: a case study of selected Kenyan secondary schools”

Sello Mokoena is professsor in the Department of Education Leadership and Management, University of South Africa. His research interests include school governance, education and policy studies, education management, distance education, and E-learning.

References

Best

Kahn

(2009) Research in Education. New Delhi: Pearl Offset Press.

Boyd

(1956) Emile for Today. London: Heinemann.

Burnett

(2010) Strategies for Financing Education: A Global View: Financing and Re-designing National Strategies. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning (IIEP).

Education For All (EFA) (2000) A National Handbook for 2000 and Beyond. Nairobi: Government Printers.

Johnstone

(2003) Cost-sharing in higher education: Tuition, finance assistance and accessibility. Sociological Review 39(3): 351–374.

Kiveu

Mayio

(2009) The impact of cost-sharing on internal efficiency of public secondary schools in Ndivisi division of Bungoma district Kenya. Educational Research and Review 4(5): 272–284.

KNEC (2012) Analysis Report.

Kombo

Tromp

(2006) Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction. Kenya: Paulines Publications Africa.

Macmillan

Schumacher

(2006) Research in Education: Evidence-based Inquiry. 6th Edition. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

10.

Martim

(2008) Inequalities in education: poor still marginalised. Daily Nation, 8 May, 14: 5.

11.

Miruka, Akinyi and Mangoa (2009) Rising costs in public secondary schools, headteachers management strategies in Kisii district. Unpublished Mphil Thesis, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya.

12.

Mouton

(2001) How to Succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral Studies: A South African Guide and Resource Book. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

13.

Nag

(1997) Minorities in Education Twenty-second Annual Status Report: 1997 Supplement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

14.

Njeru

Orodho

(2003) Education financing in Kenya: Secondary school – bursary scheme implementation and challenges. Institute of Policy Analysis and Research Discussion Paper (IPAR DP/035/2003), Nairobi.

15.

Odada

JEO

Odhiambo

(1989) A Report of Proceedings of the Workshop on Cost-Sharing in Kenya. Nairobi: UNICEF and Gok.

16.

Odada

JEO

Odhiambo

(2008) Cost Sharing in Kenya. Nairobi: UNICEF, Planning Section.

17.

OECD (1975) Education Equality and Life. Vol.1. Paris: OECD.

18.

Orodho

(2002) Enhancing access and participation in secondary education among the poor and vulnerable through bursaries in Kenya. A consultancy paper submitted to the Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR) for publication.

19.

Penrose

(1998) Cost sharing in education–public finance, school and household perspectives. Education Research Paper No. 27. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12878/1/er980027.pdf

20.

Pontefract

Hardman

(2005) The Discourse of Classroom Interaction in Kenyan Primary Schools. Comparative Education 41(1): 87–106.

21.

Psacharopoulos

Woodhall

(1985) Education for Development: An Analysis of Investment Choices. Washington DC: Oxford.

22.

Republic of Kenya (1997) Development Plan 1997. Central Bureau of Statistics.

23.

Republic of Kenya (1999) Economic Survey: Kenya Bureau of Statistics. Nairobi: Government Printer.

24.

Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST) (2005) Ministerial Public Expenditure Review. Nairobi: Government Printer.

25.

Singleton

(1993) Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford.

26.

UNESCO (2005) The Background Report of Kenya. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

27.

Wambugu

(2012) The impact of the policy of cost sharing: A case study of selected Kenyan secondary schools. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of South Africa.

28.

World Bank (2011) Kenya: Country at Glance (2011 edition). New York: World Bank.