Despite the pronouncement of Free Primary Education (FPE) made by the Government of Kenya in 2003, low-fee private schools (LFPS) have continued to grow exponentially and to figure prominently on Kenya’s educational landscape. LFPS position themselves as an alternative to the perceived failing government-run schools, and profess to offer low-income households better quality education and more importantly choices within a highly marketized educational milieu. Inherent in this neo-liberal discourse of choice is the assumption that poor parents have equitable access to an array of equal options to choose from. However, this may not be the case. What is less explored in examining choice is the low-income household’s “position within a social network” and how their habitus, field and capital impacts their school choice. This study investigates how a household’s social, cultural, and economic capital shapes and constrains their choices in accessing LFPS. Specifically, the study examines the equity effects of choice from a social capital perspective, and asks who chooses, why, and how? This study is based on a survey of 209 households from one district in the urban slum of Kibera, and involves 5 target schools (one public and four low-fee private). Using logistic regression analysis, the study proposes a model to be used to try and correctly classify households into those with children in public school, and in LFPS based on social capital predictors. Qualitative in-depth interviews with a smaller set of 20 parents, as well as school level interview data with proprietors, teachers, pupils and school management committee members (SMC) is used to triangulate and confirm findings from the household survey data. The findings reveal that choice-making for the economically disadvantaged households in this study is differentiated by the social, cultural, and economic capital they own. As households navigate and choose from and between public and LFPS, results from the study suggest not all households are necessarily able to fully exercise their right to choose and that in many cases households are pushed into a choice. Finally, it is also important to consider that while LFPS seem to be meeting a need, they also appear to be exacerbating existing boundaries of social class, ethnicity and geography.

1. Social Capital and parental decision making
structures: Evidence from Low-Fee Private
schools in Kibera, Kenya
Globalization, Regionalization and Privatization in and of education in Africa
Regional conference
12 October 2012
MALINI SIVASUBRAMANIAM
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

2. OVERVIEW
 Research background, purpose and context
 Low-cost schools in Kenya
 Methodology
 Results
 Concluding Thoughts

3. Low-cost private
schools in
Kenya
Definitional debate
around LFPS
Up to 40% of
children are enrolled
in these private low-
fee schools (Oketch,
2007).
Registered with
Ministry of Social
Services. (MGSCSS)
Registered as CBO
not private schools
2 rounds of textbook
funding from
Ministry of Education

4. Statement of Problem
 Conundrum in Kenya. FPE 2003 but increasing numbers of
LFPS.
 Yet, not all households in slums have their children in LFPS.
Speculate that family and community social capital variables
may influence parental decision-making structures.
 Questions: Why are households choosing LFP schools over
public schools and what are the meaningful financial, human,
family, spiritual -and community level social capital predictor
variables that differentiated between families with children in
public and low-fee private schools?

5. Social Capital
conceptual Framework
Draws on Bourdieu’s
and Coleman’s
conceptualizations of
social capital.
Social capital survey
adapted from Ferguson
(2002)
Conceptual Framework for study

6. Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s Capitals Operationalized as Indicators used
Cultural Capital Human Capital 1) Mother’s educational level
2) Father’s educational level
3) Child’s current school status (if
enrolled in correct class level for age)
Social Capital Family Capital 1) Family structure
2) Quality of parent-child relationship
3) Adult’s interest in child
4) Parent’s monitoring of child’s activities
5) Degree of extended family exchange
and support
Community Capital Community Capital 1) Perception of the quality of the
neighbourhood
2) Social support networks
3) Civic engagement
4) Trust and safety
5) Group membership
6) School satisfaction
7) School choice processes
Spiritual Capital Spiritual Capital 1) Degree of religiosity
2) Level of church or spiritual community
involvement
3) Church membership
4) Identified religion
5) Level of church or spiritual community
activities involvement
Economic Capital Financial Capital 1) Total household income
2) Public assistance
3) Kin financial help
4) Financial support networks
5) Economic hardship
6) Perceived financial need
7) School-related expenses

7. Methodology
 Research Site: One district in the slum of Kibera
 Schools: Area Cluster Sampling of 5 schools
 Sampling of households: Those with children in Class 6
and 7 in each of the schools and closest place of
residence to the school.
 Sample size: 100 (LFP schools), 109 (public school)
N=209
 Survey and in-depth interviews

8. Table XXXX Summary of Focus School profiles
Government School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4
Year established 1953 1994 1998 2000 1994
Number of years in present premise* 54 8 8 7 13
Category of school type Public Individual Community- INGO Faith-based
proprietor based/INGO
Partners None None First love, USA Childlife Survival Ministries, Anglican Church of
international, Kenya
Netherlands
Registered with City Council of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and
Nairobi Gender, Sports, Gender, Sports, Gender, Sports, Social Services
Culture and Culture and Culture and
Social Services Social Services Social Services
Grades offered 1-8 Nursery, 1-6 1-8 1-7 1-8
Reported total enrolment 2233 135 341 548 265
Teacher-student ratio 1:67 1:22 1:24 1:45 1:26
Number of trained teachers 33 0 11 9 5
Number of support staff 6 2 5 11 3
Fee collected/month(Ksh) 50 150 300 none 150
Fee concessions No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sponsored pupils 0 0 4 0 0
Reported no. of free and 26 4 10 All 10
concessionary places
Number of Classrooms 36 7 11 9 5
Water Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Electricity Yes No Yes Yes No
Number of toilets 20 3 16 5 4
Playground Yes No Yes No No
School feeding program Yes, World YES, Feed the Yes, World Yes, World Yes, World Food Program
Feeding Children Food Program Food Program
Program and and First Love,
Feed the USA
children
Math textbook ratio in Class 1 1:2 1:19 1:4 1:6 1:3
Math textbook ratio in Class 7 1:1 1:6^ 1:3 1:4 1:2
Textbook funding received from Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Ministry
Classroom construction material Brick, concrete Mud-walled, Brick Part brick/part Mud-walled, dirt floor
floors dirt floor mud-walled

9. Descriptive Demographic Data for the
Households in the study
Public School Households LFPS Households
 51.4% of children in the correct class  26% of children in correct class for
for age age
 Higher percentage of Muslim HH  Only 10% Muslim HH
(29%)
 Tend to be more recent migrants to
 Tend to be longer term residents of Kibera (< 5 years 28%)
Kibera (< 5 yrs 11%)
 Fewer Dual Parent Households (60%)
 More dual parent households (73%)
 Mothers with no education or primary
 Mothers with no education or incomplete (52%), Fathers (31%)
primary incomplete (35%), Fathers
(21%)  Mothers employed at home (40%),
full-time (13%)
 Mothers employed at home (63%),
full-time (6%)

10. Comparing Household Social Capital: What does
the data tell us?
1. Spiritual Capital : LFPS HH tend to have higher religious
community attendance (Х2= 5.02, p ≤ 0.05).
2. Human Capital : children in LFPS were more likely to have
mothers with no education/primary incomplete
(Х2=15.21, p≤ 0.01) than children in public schools. More
in the incorrect class for their age in LFPS (Х2=14.09, p≤
0.001)
3. Financial Capital: Public School HHs reported more
financial trouble (M=2.08, p≤ 0.01 ) and worry ( M= 1.79,
p≤ 0.05) than HHs in LFPS.

11.  Financial Capital: HHs with children in LFPS reported higher
total school expenditure than those with children in PS (Х2=
22.47, p≤ 0.01). LFPS HHs fewer financial networks to rely on to
help pay bills and with expenses (Х2= 10.41 , p≤ 0.01).
 Family Social Capital: PS HH report to giving more verbal
encouragement, but LFPS HH report as having more shared
activities. More PS HHs had mothers who worked at home
(Х2= 10.71, p≤ 0.05). HH in PS were longer term residents
than LFPS (Х2= 23.30, p≤ 0.001). Ethnicity significant with
more Nubian parents in PS than in LFP school (Х2= 13.20, p≤
0.05).
 Community Social Capital: None of seven indicators significant.

12. Profile of HHs based on study findings
Public LFP
 Fewer mothers with no ed or  Higher number of mothers with
primary incomplete no ed or primary incomplete.
 More financial trouble and  Higher religious community
worry attendance
 More verbal encouragement  Higher number of pupils in
 Longer term Kibera residents incorrect class for age
 More HHs of Nubian ethnicity  Higher school expenditure
 More mothers who worked at  Fewer financial networks to
home draw upon
 More shared activities with
children
 Mothers tend to work outside
the home

13. Public(N= 109) LFP (N=100)
Reasons for choice % %
I.Practical considerations (total) (40.9) (25.1)
(i) safe 1.1 1.1
(ii) Proximity 29.0 16.0
(iii) Feeding program 1.1 4.0
(iv) Other siblings in the school 9.7 4.0
II. Access(total) (20.4) (17.0)
(i)Availability of space 16.1 12.0
(ii)Easier admission 4.3 5.0
III.School quality(total) (20.4) (46)
(i)Good discipline 0.0 3.0
(ii)Good teaching 3.2 7.0
(iii)Higher academic standards 14.0 21.0
(iv)Good performance record 3.2 12
(v)Smaller class sizes 0.0 3.0
IV. Financial considerations(total) (65.6) (59.0)
(i)Fee concessions 1.1 5.0
(ii)Affordability 29.0 35.0
(iii)Child sponsorship 0.0 3.0
(iv)Flexible fee payment 0.0 7.0
(v) FPE 35.5 0.0
(vi) School offerd assistance 0.0 9.0
V. Community Social Capital(total) (13.0) (31.0)
(i)Parent former pupil 8.6 0.0
(ii)Other people recommended 0.0 10.0
(iii) Attend community group here 0.0 4.0
(iv)Teacher/Staff is a friend 1.1 4.0
(v) School is community-based 2.2 0.0
(vi)School supportive of HIV AIDS parents 0.0 2.0
(vii)Neighbour’s child enrolled here 0.0 7.0
(viii)Teacher/staff understanding 1.1 4.0
VI. Peripheral Reasons(total) (4.2) (6.0)
(i)Child selected 1.0 1.0
(ii)No particular reason 3.2 5.0

14. Comparing ranked relative importance of reasons given by public and LFP school
households for choosing their current school
Public school households LFP households
1. Financial considerations 1. Financial considerations
2. Practical considerations 2. School Quality
3. Access 3. Community Social Capital
4. School Quality 4. Practical considerations
5. Community Social Capital 5. Access
6. Peripheral Considerations 6. Peripheral considerations

15. Clear differentiation along
certain social capital
variables between the two
groups of households.
Decision-Making is an
shaped by HH SC but not
all households able to
exercise the ability to
choose.
In many cases, households
are pushed into a choice by
their inability to access
their first choice esp. public
schools because of lack of
space or cost. Also
evidence of schools
choosing.
Some Concluding Thoughts
Emergence of what can be
described as three kinds of
choosers of LFPS: Default,
Strategic and Active