Discussion Paper No. 75 of 2007 on Free Secondary Education in Kenya: Costs, Financing Sources and Implications

Abstract

The study analyses the feasibility of Free Secondary Education (FSE) in Kenya. Its purpose is to present an analysis on whether Kenya can afford FSE and how such a programme can be financed without compromising the gains being experienced in other sectors of the economy. The study used both qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques to analyse secondary data mainly from government sources. An Education Simulation Model (EdSim) was used to arrive at educational outputs and costs of different scenarios of FSE. The outputs from EdSim provided inputs for the KIPPRA Treasury Macro Model (KTMM) in order to evaluate the macroeconomic implication offi nancing FSE under different scenarios. Descriptive analysis is used to complement the results from the two models. The study shows that in the short run,financingfull FSE could have inflationary implications. In addition, it would cause a financial squeeze of resources from other equally deserving sub-sectors. The implications vary by the approach used -that is, either a full FSE or a gradual implementation of FSE. However, as the economy continues to experience good performance, it is possible to introduce targeted subsidies in secondary education, starting with teaching and learning materials and computers (and related accessories). The study was not able to quantify the effects of FSE on other competing sub-sectors such as health and social protection due to analytical limitations. The study concludes that FSE is publicly affordable but at a moderate to high cost. Introduction of FSE would trigger a series of more education reforms, including changing the role of pre-secondary national examinations from that of a selection tool to an instrument/or measuring pupils' competencies. The study recommends provision of free teaching and learning materials and computers in the short run, with GDF supporting educationnal infrastructure development. More subsidies should be considered in the future. Moreover, as an affirmative action to raise real transition to secondary, a transition programme is necessary and should include targeting a proportion of an enhanced secondary bursary fund to needy Form 1 students who should be identified while in Standard 8. Finally, it is important for the Ministry of Education to establish the real unit cost of secondary education inputs to appropriately inform sustainable financing of envisaged secondary education expansion.