Kenya school report card 2012 pilot report

KENYA SCHOOL REPORT CARD

PILOT REPORT 2012

Ministry of Education

Republic of Kenya


PILOT REPORT 2012

© National Taxpayers Association (NTA)November 2012


PILOT REPORT 2012

vSchool Report Card 2012

Table of Contents Acronyms 1Executive Summary 2Foreword 3Acknowledgements 41: Introduction 52: Methodology 6 2.1 Sample Size Determination 63: The Findings 7 3.1 Selection SRC Committee Members & Training of Parents 7 3.1.1 Parents’ Participation in SRC Meetings 7 3.1.2 Records of minutes 8 3.2 Second meeting with Parents to discuss the SRC 9 3.3 Parents turnout for the second meeting to discuss and complete the SRC 94: SRC Ratings 10 4.1 SRC Ratings – National Outlook 10 4.2 SRC Ratings - Regional Outlook 10 4.3 SRC County Rankings 11 4.4 SRC Rankings - Best Rated County by SRC Category 13 4.5 Worst County by SRC Category 145: Key observations by Parents 166: Conclusions 177: Recommendations 18

vi School Report Card 2012

List of TablesTable 1 – Number of Schools sampled and selected at County Level 6

Table 2 - Proportions of schools where meetings were held (1st Meeting) 7

Table 3 - Number of Parents who attended the first meeting to explain the SRC and select Committee members 8

Table 4 - Sample of Schools with records of meetings 8

Table 5 - Sample of schools which held a second meeting 9

Table 6 - Number of Parents who attended the 2nd meeting to discuss and complete the SRC 9

Table 7 - SRC Ratings 10

Table 8 - SRC Ratings at Provincial level 11

Table 9 - SRC County Rankings 12

Table 10 - Top 5 rated Counties (SRC Category 1) 13










Table 20 - Worst rated Counties - Bottom 5 (SRC Category 1) 14


Table 22 – Worst rated Counties - Bottom 5 (SRC Category 3) 15



Table 25 –Worst rated Counties - Bottom 5 (SRC Category 6) 15





1School Report Card 2012

Acronyms

ADPs Area Development Programmes

ASAL Arid and Semi arid Land

BOG Board of Governors

DEB District Education Board

DEO District Education Officer

DQAS Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards

KCPE Kenya Certificate of Primary Education

KESSP Kenya Education Sector Support Programme

MOE Ministry of Education

NTA National Taxpayers Association

SIMSC School Instructional Materials Selection Committee

SMC School Management Committee

SRC School Report Card

2 School Report Card 2012

Executive Summary

The National Taxpayers Association is an independent, non-partisan organization focused on supporting good governance in Kenya by strengthening citizen-to-government accountability, and citizen-to-citizen accountability. The School Report Card seeks to improve the quality of education in public primary schools in Kenya. The SRC is a formal, consensus-based report completed by parents of school-going children annually on how well their school is performing in 10 key areas that they use to rank it.

In order to support and enhance learning outcomes in public primary schools, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in partnership with the National Taxpayers Association (NTA) and other key stakeholders -- including Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and the Kenya Primary School Heads Association (KEPSHA) developed the School Report Card. The overall aim of the School Report Card programme, which is listed officially in the MOE Governance Strengthening Plan, is to improve school management, pupil/student performance, teacher attendance, financial accountability, and the quality of education in all public primary schools in Kenya.

The purpose of the multi-pronged approach of the School Report Card programme is to bring together key stakeholders in primary school education in Kenya, in an effort to ensure children receive quality education through designing and implementing a mechanism that seeks to mobilize parental support for their schools. This mechanism, which entails implementation of a tool, also known as the School Report Card, includes the participation of head teachers, teachers, parents, District Education Officers (DEOs), Quality Assurance Officers, School Management Committees (SMCs) and the Ministry of Education (MOE). The tool is divided into 10 key assessment categories of accountability and performance in order to give parents a reference for making recommendations periodically to the school management, the Ministry of Education and the National Taxpayers Association.

The most remarkable achievement was the overwhelming participation in and ownership of the project by all stakeholders during this phase. Parents, in particular, rose to the occasion in the SRC meetings, which were designed specifically for their management and input.

The MOE fully appreciates and supports the important role parents play in improving the quality of education in their local primary schools. Together, we can make a difference in improving the quality of education that our children receive, which will in turn contribute to a prosperous political, social, economic and cultural future for all Kenyans.


Foreword

The Government of Kenya is committed to providing quality education to all school-going children. However, there are a number of challenges in this regard occasioned by the increase in pupil enrolment in schools after the introduction of Free Primary Education (FPE) in 2003.

One of these challenges was the abrupt withdrawal of parents’ support and participation in local schools. Because the Ministry of Education understands the important role parents must play in improving the quality of education at their local primary schools, they participated in and encouraged the development of the primary school report card, which was launched in 2010.

The School Report Card is a tool for parents to assess the performance of their school each year in 10 key areas that relate to education quality. Each year, all parents will meet together to discuss and agree on the assessment scores they want to list in their School Report Card.

The first phase of the pilot study, which was launched in 2010, targeted a sample of 5,000 public primary schools across the country with the aim of having representation from all 47 counties. The findings and ratings have been incorporated in the second phase of the pilot study to ensure continuous improvement.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all parents for getting involved in successfully implementing School Report Cards.

ENOS O. OYAYAEDUCATION SECRETARYMINISTRY OF EDUCATION


AcknowledgementsThe NTA would like to acknowledge the outstanding professionalism and effort by the team from Ministry of Education (MOE) and National Taxpayers Association National (NTA) in this exercise and publication. We are particularly grateful for the commitment, the drive, the time and effort put in by the team in developing the survey instruments, the field work and the final drafting of the report. Our sincere gratitude goes to Mr Enos Oyaya, the Education Secretary, Mr Mohammed Mwinyipembe, the Director for Quality Assurance and Standards, Mr Opiyo, and Mr Nakhulo (The senior Deputy Directors of Education) of the Ministry of Education, Mr Idris Aden of the Kenya National Union of Teachers, all the District Education Officers, The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards officers, the AEOs and the Teaching Assistance Centre tutors for various aspects of this work and all the necessary support that made the exercise possible.

The NTA team, led by Michael Otieno and Wolde Wesa, the acting National Coordinator, Martin Napisa, and all the NTA Regional Coordinators are appreciated for their immense contribution to the entire exercise, particularly for leading and coordinating the field work, data analysis and the compilation of the report. Many thanks go to Dr Moses Ngware for his comments and our heartfelt gratitude goes to the; Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Kenya Primary School Heads Association (KEPSHA), The Teachers Service Commission (TSC), the teaching fraternity and the parents at large for their invaluable support, without which this work would not have been successful. Finally, we are enormously grateful to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), UKaid and Hewlett Foundation for their generous contribution towards this exercise and their staff for their helpful comments, which informed this work.


1: IntroductionIn Kenya today, parents play an important role in the successful management of schools through their participation in School Management Committees (SMCs), School Instructional Materials Selection Committees (SIMSCs), Parents Teachers Associations (PTAs) and Boards of Governors (BOGs). Under the Kenya Education Sector Support Programme I (KESSP), which was launched in July 2005, parents are expected to actively work with schools to ensure accountability from head teachers, teachers, SMCs, District Education Officers (DEOs) and District Education Boards (DEBs) in order to improve the quality of the education their children receive. To effectively channel this effort towards accountability, the Ministry of Education (MOE), in partnership with the National Taxpayers Association (NTA), developed the School Report Card for the primary level.The School Report Card is a tool for parents to assess the performance of their schools each year in 10 key areas that relate to education quality:

1. School Safety and Protection, 2. School Facilities, 3. Access to Textbooks, 4. Continuous Assessment, 5. Water and Sanitation, 6. Roles of Children at the School, 7. The Management of Instructional Materials, 8. Performance of the School Management Committee, 9. Homework Assignment and 10. Marking and Parental Responsibility.

The School Report Card was developed to encourage parents to take a more active role in improving the quality of education in their local primary schools. It is very important for parents to get involved in and help head teachers, teachers and School Management Committees to focus on improving the quality of education for all children.The School Report Card is a tool to share information between parents and District Education Officers, DEO staff, and District Education Boards, head teachers, teachers and School Management Committees. This information is usually very difficult to access due to lack of formal mechanisms through which parents can communicate directly with DEOs, DEBs and the ministry headquarters. The Ministry of Education, with the National Taxpayers Association, developed the School Report Card to address this constraint.

How does the SRC work?Each year, all parents meet together to discuss and agree on the assessment scores they want to list in their School Report Card. Then the parents, through their School Report Card Committee, send one copy of their completed School Report Card to the DEO/DEB, another copy to the County Director of Education and one copy to the Ministry of Education head office. This enables education officials at the district and county levels to take appropriate action in schools that perform poorly. It also enables the best performing schools to get awards in each district.The School Report Card is a practical and accessible tool for parents to use to demand accountability and improved performance from their head teacher, teachers and SMC.


2: Methodology 2.1 Sample Size DeterminationFor this phase, a sample of 5,000 public schools was targeted across the country with the aim of having representation from all 47 Counties. An algorithm was employed to scientifically select the number of schools in each county, i.e. .x= (Target Sample/ Total Public Schools * Number of Public Primary Schools in the county).

X = (5,000/19,059) * No. of Public Primary Schools in the County

TThe selection of schools in each county was random.From the target sample, 5,000 public primary schools were selected. An additional 770 schools were incorporated after the head teachers and parents from these schools asked NTA to carry out an assessment of their institutions. These included schools that were not initially targeted, hence bringing the total sample of selected schools to 5,770 from 43 Counties. Table 1 indicates the number of schools selected in each county.Table 1 – Number of Schools sampled and selected at County Level

From the 47 counties targeted, responses were obtained from only 43 counties as indicated in Table 1. Four counties (Bomet, Samburu, Isiolo and Narok) did not return any of the assessment forms. This was attributed to the escalation of insecurity in Samburu and Isiolo at the time of the assessment. In Narok and Bomet counties (which share a border), the parents and teachers were not cooperative in filling and submitting the assessment forms.

CountySchools %

SampledTarget Responded

BARINGO 131 243 26%

BUNG'OMA 162 494 26%

BUSIA 106 122 26%

ELGEYO/MARAKWET 102 25 26%

EMBU 77 74 26%

GARISSA 31 45 26%

HOMA-BAY 228 321 26%

KAJIADO 88 62 26%

KAKAMEGA 217 318 26%

KERICHO 102 56 26%

KIAMBU 133 74 26%

KILIFI 116 157 26%

KIRINYAGA 57 62 26%

KISII 178 189 26%

KISUMU 176 252 26%

CountySchools %


KITUI 206 373 26%

KWALE 90 34 26%

LAIKIPIA 73 112 26%

LAMU 24 52 26%

MACHAKOS 201 311 26%

MAKUENI 183 235 26%

MANDERA 31 43 26%

MARSABIT 35 23 26%

MERU 151 126 26%

MIGORI 186 235 26%

MOMBASA 28 68 26%

MURANGA 146 123 26%

NAIROBI 61 38 26%

NAKURU 179 165 26%

NANDI 178 93 26%

CountySchools %


NYAMIRA 142 86 26%

NYANDARUA 126 114 26%

NYERI 116 94 26%

SIAYA 208 172 26%

TAITA TAVETA 54 170 26%

TANA RIVER 32 17 26%

THARAKA NITHI 75 86 26%

TRANS NZOIA 100 54 26%

TURKANA 58 147 26%

UASIN GISHU 80 59 26%

VIHIGA 86 197 26%

WAJIR 35 21 26%

WEST POKOT 82 28 26%


3: The Findings 3.1 Selection SRC Committee Members & Training of Parents During the school visits, the following question was asked to the respondents: (Question 5) Was there a meeting with parents to explain the School Report Card, and select School Report Card Committee members? This question sought to determine whether there was a meeting held with parents to explain the SRC and also to select members for purposes of participating in the SRC reporting.A total of 5,655 schools (98 per cent of total sampled schools) held a general meeting with parents to explain the School Report Card and select the School Report Committee members. From the data given in Table 2, counties in North Eastern Province recorded 100 per cent response on the occurrence of the meetings, followed by Eastern (99.9%) while the lowest percentage was from Nairobi Province at 87.9%. There were, therefore, very significant incidences of meetings held to explain the SRC and the selection of the SRC committee.Table 2 - Proportions of schools where meetings were held (1st Meeting)

Province Yes - meeting was held NO

Total 98.0% 2.0%Central 95.7% 4.3%Coast 99.2% 0.8%Eastern 99.9% 0.1%Nairobi 87.9% 12.1%North Eastern 100.0% -Nyanza 97.8% 2.2%Rift Valley 95.5% 4.5%Western 99.1% 0.9%

NOTE: A sample of 312 schools (5.2 percent of total sample) did not respond to this question

3.1.1 Parents’ Participation in SRC MeetingsA total of 243,177 parents across the country attended the first meeting to explain the School Report Card and select committee members. On average, there were 42 parents who attended this meeting in each school -- with the highest turnout recorded in Rift Valley (61) and the lowest in Western Province (28). In Western Province though, the turnout was skewed towards women, in that, there was nearly twice the number of females in attendance as men. This scenario was also seen in Nairobi Province. However, in Nyanza Province, there were more male attendees than women.


Overall, there were more women (57 per cent) than men (43 per cent) as shown in table 3 below.

Table 3 - Number of Parents who attended the first meeting to explain the SRC and select Committee members

Province N0. ofSchools

No of parents - TurnoutAverage

AttendanceWomenAttendees

Men Attendees

TotalAttendees

Total 5,770 138,867 104,310 243,177 42Central 639 16,121 12,206 28,327 61Coast 498 18,733 9,233 27,966 56Eastern 1,228 27,358 18,209 45,567 37Nairobi 38 692 367 1,059 28North Eastern 109 2,796 3,151 5,947 55Nyanza 1,083 20,636 19,309 39,945 32Rift Valley 1,044 19,627 16,942 36,569 35Western 1,131 32,904 24,893 57,797 51

From these findings, it can be concluded that women are more likely to willingly participate in monitoring the education of their children. This inference is important in determining where the focus should be in terms of building the capacity of parents to be involved in the education of their children. In addition, it will be important to establish the factors that prevent men from participating since it is important that all parents are involved in monitoring the education of their children.

3.1.2 Records of Minutes In terms of recording the minutes of the meeting, 4,963 schools (86 per cent of the sample) had records of the first meeting with parents. In Nairobi Province, 40 per cent of schools sampled did not have these records. This indicates that, in Nairobi, most parents and teachers have little regard for records of minutes of meetings held. Minutes form a very clear picture of deliberations in the meetings. Table 4 further illustrates this.Table 4 - Sample of Schools with records of meetings

Province Sample of schools with records of meetings No Records

Total 85.9% 14.1%Central 82.9% 17.1%Coast 91.3% 8.7%Eastern 95.6% 4.4%Nairobi 60.0% 40.0%North Eastern 81.7% 18.3%Nyanza 85.2% 14.8%Rift Valley 76.5% 23.5%Western 84.5% 15.5%


3.2 Second meeting with Parents to discuss the SRC Only 4,847 schools (84%of the sample) held a second/ final meeting with parents to discuss and complete the School Report Card. The highest percentage was in Eastern Province (92.4%) while the lowest was again in Nairobi Province at 54.2 per cent. This can be attributed to the fact that Nairobi is predominantly urban, and is characterised by a wage employment population as opposed to other regions. Table 5 summarises the holding of a second meeting.Table 5 - Sample of schools which held second meeting

Province Sample of schools which held a second meeting No meeting held

Total 84.1% 15.9%Central 76.8% 23.2%Coast 90.7% 9.3%Eastern 92.4% 7.6%Nairobi 54.2% 45.8%North Eastern 90.3% 9.7%Nyanza 88.1% 11.9%Rift Valley 77.0% 23.0%Western 76.7% 23.3%

3.3 Parents turnout for the second meeting to discuss and complete the SRCIn the second meeting, to discuss and complete the School Report Card, 191,055 out of 243,177 parents attended, representing a 79 per cent follow up across the country. The proportion of non-traceable parents was highest in Nairobi, where 77 per cent of those who attended the first meeting did not show up – perhaps due to the parents’ work commitments. Notably, the lowest proportion of non-traceable parents was in North Eastern Province with 4 per cent as shown in Table 5 & Table 6.Table 6 - Number of Parents who attended the 2nd meeting to discuss and complete the SRC

Province N0. ofSchools

No of parents - TurnoutAverage

AttendanceWomenAttendees

Men Attendees

TotalAttendees

Total 5,770 106,957 84,098 191,055 33Central 639 11,890 9,241 21,131 45Coast 498 16,531 8,066 24,597 49Eastern 1,228 23,398 17,214 40,612 33Nairobi 38 161 82 243 6North Eastern 109 2,505 3,214 5,719 52Nyanza 1,083 18,033 16,747 34,780 28Rift Valley 1,044 14,375 12,976 27,351 26Western 1,131 20,064 16,558 36,622 32


4: SRC Ratings In this section, parents were required to rate the school out of 10 (1-10), where 1 represented a school that is very poor in that category and 10 represents a school that is the best. There were 10 categories included in the School Report Card, namely;

SRC-1. School Safety and Protection SRC-2. School Facilities

SRC-3. Access to Textbooks SRC-4. Continuous Assessment

SRC-5. Water and Sanitation SRC-6. Roles of Children at the School

SRC-7. The Management of Instructional Materials SRC-8. Performance of the School Management Committee

SRC-9. Homework Assignment and Marking SRC-10. Parental Responsibility

4.1 SRC Ratings – National OutlookIn general, schools were given an average rating across the country -- (57/100). “Roles of Children at the School” -- (Category 6) -- was the best rated category among the 10 with an average of 6.42. The worst rated category was Parental Responsibility, which produced a mean average score of 5.22. From this data, we can conclude that, either most parents have are not keen on taking up the responsibility of monitoring their children’s education or are unaware of this important responsibility. This is a key factor affecting the performance of pupils in school. This is further explained by the fact that the roles of children in school is rated highest, indicating that teachers’ play their part well but parents do not measure up on their roles. Overall, schools in Central Province received the highest ratings (64.22/100) while schools in North Eastern Province received the lowest ratings (52.45/100) as shown in Table 7.Table 7 - SRC Ratings

Mean SRC Total/100

Category Ratings of SRC Items 1 – 10 (Mean, 10) KCPE2011MEAN

SRC 1

SRC 2

SRC 3

SRC 4

SRC 5

SRC 6

SRC 7

SRC 8

SRC 9

SRC 10

Total 57.38 5.93 5.75 5.58 5.96 5.32 6.42 5.78 5.88 5.53 5.22 238.50

Central 64.22 6.79 6.44 6.26 6.70 5.76 7.10 6.34 6.67 6.35 5.82 227.69

Coast 55.64 5.60 5.79 5.65 5.91 5.27 6.39 5.83 5.54 5.10 4.56 217.59

Eastern 57.91 5.72 5.64 5.81 6.01 5.38 6.39 5.66 5.93 5.74 5.64 238.59

Nairobi 55.87 5.26 5.55 4.58 5.87 5.24 7.32 5.79 6.18 5.16 4.92 242.03

N. Eastern 52.45 5.42 5.50 5.25 5.10 5.19 6.37 5.41 4.99 4.79 4.43 250.08

Nyanza 55.65 5.61 5.57 5.60 6.01 5.07 6.06 5.52 5.60 5.55 5.06 244.21

Rift Valley 58.83 6.19 5.92 5.53 5.98 5.62 6.49 6.09 5.97 5.74 5.29 241.38

Western 55.87 6.13 5.66 5.09 5.66 5.13 6.51 5.71 5.97 5.02 5.00 252.26

4.2 SRC Ratings – Regional OutlookThe role of children in school was the best rated category. This indicates that teachers take good care of children in school and the pupils are always accountable to the teachers while at school. However, most parents, from the data in Table 8, do not play their part well, for instance taking good care of their children at home. This is shown by the parental responsibility rating that was the worst rated category in five of the eight regions. In Central and Eastern provinces, water and sanitation is rated as the worst category, while in Nairobi, it was access to textbooks that was the worst rated category.


Table 8 - SRC Ratings at Regional level

Province Best Category Mean Worst Category MeanCentral Role of Children at School 7.10 Water and Sanitation 5.76Coast Role of Children at School 6.39 Parental Responsibility 4.56Eastern Role of Children at School 6.39 Water and Sanitation 5.38Nairobi Role of Children at School 7.32 Access to Textbooks 4.58North Eastern Role of Children at School 6.37 Parental Responsibility 4.43Nyanza Role of Children at School 6.06 Parental Responsibility 4.43Rift Valley Role of Children at School 6.49 Parental Responsibility 5.29Western Role of Children at School 6.51 Parental Responsibility 5.00

4.3 SRC County Rankings Trans Nzoia County in Rift Valley Province was the best rated county with a cumulative mean total of 75.17 out of a possible 100 points, followed by Kirinyaga (72.97) and Murang’a (66.09). On the other hand, Garissa County in North Eastern Province was the worst rated, with a cumulative mean of 37.85 followed by West Pokot (48.00) and Siaya (48.08). The county ratings give an indication of performance in terms of school facilities management, academic responsibilities management, parental responsibilities and children’s role while at school as shown in the Table 9.

To further draw inferences the data on rating of schools was compared with performance in the last Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) examination and the correlations were striking. Counties that were rated highly by parents performed better in KCPE while those that were rated low performed poorly in the examination.


Table 9 - SRC County Rankings

Position County Name

SCHOOL REPORT CARD CATEGORIESTotal/100

KCPEMEANSRC

1SRC

2SRC

3SRC

4SRC

5SRC

6SRC

7SRC

8SRC

9SRC 10

1 TRANS NZOIA 8.02 7.54 7.98 6.91 8.07 8.17 8.20 6.87 6.28 7.13 75.17 241.86

2 KIRINYAGA 7.79 7.11 7.06 7.82 6.55 7.89 7.26 7.74 7.03 6.71 72.97 253.88

3 MURANGA 6.98 6.84 6.48 6.48 5.86 7.36 6.53 6.84 6.48 6.23 66.09 222.88

4 EMBU 6.68 5.95 6.37 6.54 5.84 7.05 6.38 6.45 6.30 6.18 63.73 234.45

5 LAIKIPIA 6.60 6.29 6.63 6.59 5.77 7.21 6.65 6.21 6.14 5.44 63.54 223.83

6 KIAMBU 6.77 6.32 6.05 6.65 5.42 7.12 6.04 6.64 6.46 5.82 63.30 223.43

7 MANDERA 6.16 6.26 6.60 6.67 5.48 7.14 6.83 6.38 6.49 5.24 63.25 239.08

8 WAJIR 6.71 6.52 6.90 6.33 5.62 5.71 6.57 6.24 5.62 5.81 62.05 256.32

9 UASIN GISHU 7.05 6.92 5.29 6.07 6.31 7.53 5.76 6.51 5.76 4.68 61.86 246.25

10 NYERI 6.30 5.97 6.24 6.50 5.79 6.36 6.00 6.34 6.40 5.67 61.58 228.79

11 ELGEYO/MARAKWET 6.56 6.24 6.28 6.40 5.92 7.80 5.84 6.08 4.96 4.72 60.80 246.63

12 NANDI 6.31 6.29 6.13 6.16 5.94 6.43 5.97 6.32 5.71 5.54 60.80 251.25

13 KAJIADO 6.15 5.97 5.90 6.37 5.94 6.32 6.03 5.97 6.02 5.74 60.40 242.99

14 NYANDARUA 6.46 6.08 5.72 6.53 5.39 6.96 6.08 6.15 5.68 4.99 60.06 226.84

15 NYAMIRA 6.26 5.72 6.14 6.33 5.47 6.28 6.11 5.87 5.79 5.35 59.31 227.78

16 MACHAKOS 5.85 5.87 6.01 5.64 5.68 6.30 5.62 6.09 6.02 6.05 59.13 240.32

17 VIHIGA 6.21 5.80 5.30 5.68 5.34 6.48 6.08 6.38 5.63 5.32 58.21 253.98

18 LAMU 6.38 6.31 5.82 6.10 5.17 6.79 6.08 5.52 5.04 4.82 58.03 219.69

19 BARINGO 6.29 5.92 4.64 5.95 5.44 6.07 6.24 5.60 6.19 5.63 57.97 249.53

20 KISUMU CITY 5.81 5.68 5.74 6.05 5.61 6.52 5.71 5.68 5.88 5.18 57.86 241.46

21 MERU 5.89 5.63 5.84 6.06 5.25 6.60 5.69 5.83 5.83 5.14 57.75 225.25

22 TAITA TAVETA 5.62 5.84 6.00 6.08 5.38 6.90 6.09 6.01 4.92 4.72 57.55 217.16

23 NAKURU 6.10 5.57 5.29 5.68 5.54 6.47 5.88 6.33 5.43 5.07 57.36 227.96

24 KISII 5.82 5.73 5.98 5.99 5.09 6.22 5.86 5.82 5.59 5.20 57.29 230.89

25 KITUI 5.65 5.48 5.64 6.12 5.20 6.55 5.66 5.88 5.67 5.45 57.29 232.60

26 MOMBASA CITY 5.79 5.97 5.68 6.38 5.65 6.15 5.87 5.24 5.96 4.59 57.26 222.26

27 MARSABIT 5.53 6.37 6.00 6.56 4.84 6.68 6.33 5.22 5.44 4.22 57.20 252.29

28 MAKUENI 5.38 5.55 5.58 6.06 5.38 5.98 5.54 5.93 5.50 5.69 56.59 254.24

29 MIGORI 5.73 5.51 5.53 6.07 4.98 6.24 5.50 5.60 5.67 5.32 56.16 238.78

30 NAIROBI CITY 5.26 5.55 4.58 5.87 5.24 7.32 5.79 6.18 5.16 4.92 55.87 226.72

31 BUNG'OMA 6.16 5.73 5.13 5.72 5.08 6.66 5.55 5.83 4.92 5.08 55.85 238.64

32 HOMA-BAY 5.48 5.62 5.68 6.14 4.91 6.12 5.56 5.58 5.54 5.04 55.68 241.02

33 THARAKA NITHI 5.43 5.34 5.86 6.06 5.01 6.17 5.28 5.37 5.17 5.43 55.13 246.68

34 KAKAMEGA 6.06 5.47 4.93 5.55 5.05 6.41 5.76 6.12 4.91 4.64 54.90 246.32

35 BUSIA 6.01 5.67 4.97 5.64 5.20 6.20 5.67 5.43 4.74 5.12 54.65 252.29

36 KERICHO 5.61 5.46 5.34 5.52 4.88 6.00 6.13 5.89 5.25 4.38 54.45 232.96

37 TANA RIVER 5.82 5.65 5.53 5.41 5.29 5.53 6.24 5.71 5.24 3.94 54.35 210.22

38 KILIFI 5.30 5.60 5.36 5.61 5.08 5.99 5.52 5.24 5.06 4.41 53.17 209.77

38 TURKANA 5.22 5.24 5.20 5.50 4.82 5.91 5.39 5.40 5.32 4.65 52.65 245.26

40 KWALE 5.18 5.38 5.00 5.42 5.03 6.06 5.33 5.18 4.48 4.30 51.38 207.75

41 SIAYA 4.87 5.13 4.67 5.46 4.46 4.72 4.50 5.17 4.80 4.30 48.08 245.90

42 WEST POKOT 4.64 4.21 4.79 5.50 4.36 5.29 4.68 5.18 4.64 4.71 48.00 223.26

43 GARISSA 4.11 4.31 3.22 3.02 4.71 5.96 3.53 3.07 2.87 3.04 37.85 256.50


4.4 SRC Rankings - Best Rated County by SRC Category

Trans Nzoia County led in 7 of the 10 SRC categories; Kirinyaga was the best rated county in 3 categories, namely: Continuous Assessment, and Homework Assignment and Marking. In Trans-Nzoia County, these could be attributed to better management of the school safety and protection procedures, water and sanitation, access to textbooks and school facilities. In all these categories, school management together with the community, has done a tremendous job of taking care of the school and its facilities. In Kirinyaga County, there were good management practices in categories such as school continuous assessment tests, homework assignment and performance of the school management committee as shown in the breakdown in Table 10.

Table 10 - Top 5 rated counties (SRC Category 1) Table 11 - Top 5 rated counties (SRC Category 2)

COUNTYSRC – 2

“School Facilities”

TRANS NZOIA 7.54

NAROK 7.50

KIRINYAGA 7.11

UASIN GISHU 6.92

MURANGA 6.84

COUNTYSRC – 1

“School Safety and Protection”

TRANS NZOIA 8.02

KIRINYAGA 7.79

UASIN GISHU 7.05

NAROK 7.00

MURANGA 6.98


COUNTYSRC – 4

“Continuous Assessment”

KIRINYAGA 7.82

TRANS NZOIA 6.91

MANDERA 6.67

KIAMBU 6.65

LAIKIPIA 6.59

COUNTYSRC – 3

“Access to Textbooks”

TRANS NZOIA 7.98

KIRINYAGA 7.06

WAJIR 6.90

LAIKIPIA 6.63

MANDERA 6.60


COUNTYSRC – 6

“Roles of Children at the School”

TRANS NZOIA 8.17

KIRINYAGA 7.89

ELGEYO/MARAKWET 7.80

UASIN GISHU 7.53

NAROK 7.50

COUNTYSRC – 5

“Water and Sanitation”

TRANS NZOIA 8.07

KIRINYAGA 6.55

NAROK 6.50

UASIN GISHU 6.31

KAJIADO 5.94



COUNTY

SRC – 8

“Performance of the School Management

Committee”

KIRINYAGA 7.74

TRANS NZOIA 6.87

MURANGA 6.84

KIAMBU 6.64

UASIN GISHU 6.51

COUNTYSRC – 7

“The Management of Instructional Materials”

TRANS NZOIA 8.20

NAROK 7.50

KIRINYAGA 7.26

MANDERA 6.83

LAIKIPIA 6.65


COUNTYSRC – 10

“Parental Responsibility”

TRANS NZOIA 7.13

KIRINYAGA 6.71

MURANGA 6.23

EMBU 6.18

MACHAKOS 6.05

COUNTYSRC – 9

“Homework Assignment and Marking”

KIRINYAGA 7.03

MANDERA 6.49

MURANGA 6.48

KIAMBU 6.46

NYERI 6.40

4.5 Worst County by SRC Category

Schools from ASAL regions (Garissa and West Pokot counties) received the lowest ratings. This is due to the fact that schools in these regions have unfavourable climatic conditions, with long periods of drought and consequently no water. Garissa County performed poorly in school safety and protection and the management of instructional materials, indicating that this region is highly insecure. In West Pokot, school facilities management and water sanitation received very poor ratings, indicating that in West Pokot, it could be the mere lack of water and the inability of the school management to take care of facilities. This could further be fueled by constant cattle rustling. Table 11 illustrates.

Table 20 – Worst rated counties - Bottom 5 Table 21 - Worst rated counties - Bottom 5 (SRC Category 1) (SRC Category 2)

COUNTYSRC – 2

“School Facilities”

WEST POKOT 4.21

GARISSA 4.31

SIAYA 5.13

TURKANA 5.24

THARAKA-NITHI 5.34

COUNTYSRC – 1

“School Safety and Protection”

GARISSA 4.11

WEST POKOT 4.64

SIAYA 4.87

KWALE 5.18

TURKANA 5.22


Table 22 - Worst rated counties - Bottom 5 Table 23 - Worst rated counties - Bottom 5 (SRC Category 3) (SRC Category 4)

COUNTYSRC – 4

“Continuous Assessment”

GARISSA 3.02

TANA RIVER 5.41

KWALE 5.42

SIAYA 5.46

TURKANA 5.50

COUNTYSRC – 3

“Access to Textbooks”

GARISSA 3.22

NAIROBI CITY 4.58

BARINGO 4.64

SIAYA 4.67

WEST POKOT 4.79


COUNTYSRC – 6

“Roles of Children at the School”

SIAYA 4.72

WEST POKOT 5.29

TANA RIVER 5.53

WAJIR 5.71

TURKANA 5.91

COUNTYSRC – 5

“Water and Sanitation”

WEST POKOT 4.36

SIAYA 4.46

GARISSA 4.71

TURKANA 4.82

MARSABIT 4.84


COUNTY

SRC – 8

“Performance of the School Management

Committee”

GARISSA 3.07

SIAYA 5.17

WEST POKOT 5.18

KWALE 5.18

MARSABIT 5.22

COUNTYSRC – 7

“The Management of Instructional Materials”

GARISSA 3.53

SIAYA 4.50

WEST POKOT 4.68

THARAKA-NITHI 5.28

KWALE 5.33


COUNTYSRC – 10

“Parental Responsibility”

GARISSA 3.04

TANA RIVER 3.94

MARSABIT 4.22

SIAYA 4.30

KWALE 4.30

COUNTYSRC – 9

““Homework Assignment and Marking”

GARISSA 3.04

KWALE 3.94

WEST POKOT 4.22

BUSIA 4.30

SIAYA 4.30


5: Key observations by parents• According to 24.2 per cent of the parents, the SMC structure should be given a longer period

to serve, with the basis of strengthened governance frameworks so as to reduce on the misappropriation of funds linked to the one-year term of the SMC

• Parents are skeptical about MOE officials addressing problems in school. Up to 16 per cent of the parents doubt that MOE officers will address issues raised by parents through the school report card.

• Some head teachers and teachers have served 10 years and even more in the same school. From the assessment, 20 per cent of the parents blame this group of school heads for poor management

• In the assessment, 47.3 per cent of the parents recommend that the school management be transparent and accountable on utilization of school resources by displaying books of accounts publicly as required by the MOE policy. They also requested that other monies collected by the head teachers from the parents (development money, money for invigilators and the supervisors during examinations, money for buying exercise books for pupils, money for online examination registration for the candidates above the normal rates for the Kenya National Examinations Council) should be accounted for accordingly.

• The learning environment is the fulcrum of success in any learning institution. Access to toilets in many schools is wanting. With an average of just 5.32 per cent able to access to water and sanitation facilities in public primary schools, there is need for improvements in this regard. In some areas, like West Pokot County, access to water and sanitation was recorded at 4.36 per cent, the worst performing category. Access to classrooms in some parts of the country is another key problem. Some schools have classrooms with more than 70 pupils, others like in Mandera and Wajir County (e.g. Beramo Primary School and Balatu Amin Primary School), Daba Primary School in Marsabit County, and the nursery at Elrar primary School in Tana River County have their pupils learning under acacia trees even with funds like the Constituencies Development Fund and the Local Authority Transfer Fund providing for infrastructure development. Assessed schools, especially those built using the CDF funds like Kamaguru Primary School – three classrooms -- and Elrar Primary School -- two classrooms – have no seats or desks, forcing the pupils sit on the floor. Only 13.7 per cent of parents assessed vouched for infrastructure improvement in their schools.

• According to the assessment, 29.9 per cent of the respondents -- majority from arid and semi arid regions -- are particular on need for improving water and sanitation in their schools. Tied to this is also the school feeding programme. Schools should have safe water treated and stored well. Among the poor also, there is often not enough food at home. School meals are a good way to channel vital nourishment to poor children. Good health facilitates enhance teaching and learning, thereby contributing to improved academic performance. It results in enhanced retention and increases transition to secondary school as it prevents children from dropping out.

• The school learning environment should be a safe haven that allows for effective learning. Unfortunately, the pupils -- especially girls -- have fallen victim to sexual harassment both from the members of staff at their school, at home or in the community.

• From the assessment, many parents have raised concerns on teacher absenteeism. This, according to 35.5 per cent of the parents, is one of the major contributing factors to the poor learning outcomes in their schools.

• Access to school instructional and learning materials is the other factor that, according to the assessment, has contributed to poor learning outcomes. It is apparent that while some schools have low text book to pupil ratios, others have books locked in cupboards by the management while around 3.1 per cent of the parents say the management cannot account for the instructional and learning materials procured.


6: ConclusionsParents play a very important role in the management of their children’s education. This programme (SRC) is an attempt to provide parents with an instrument that gives feedback to agencies responsible for the administration of education in the country. Instead of a purely top-down model of administration, the programme provides a ‘grassroots’ approach to the Ministry of Education by giving a significant level of local control, devolving some power from the centralized agencies such as the MOE, and empowering members of the community to take a position on the terms and criteria of their pupils’ performance.Indeed, across the 10 SRC categories, parental responsibility received the lowest ratings, suggesting that most parents are detached from their children’s education. Further, 20 per cent of parents who attended the initial meeting failed to show up for the second one to discuss the SRC.Parental responsibility is fundamental, as evidenced by the findings in counties which recorded high ratings in parental responsibility as well as good performance in the 2011 KCPE examination. Where parental responsibility was above average, there was a significant difference of 7 units (239 minus 232) out of a total of 500 possible units in the final national examination. There is, therefore, a strong correlation between assertive parental responsibility and high learning outcomes. This assessment data suggests that the more parents involve themselves in mechanical processes designed to facilitate the education of their children, the more successful the children will be in institutions of learning such as primary schools.The strong correlation can, therefore, be interpreted as a causal connection of the highest and most primary institutional importance that forms family as the basic unit of society. Since parents are part of the natural demographic of a historical nation, in this case, the nation of Kenya, the population of parents has to be studied at the household level with appropriate methodological considerations. It is the intent of this conclusion to articulate the significance of the School Report Card as an instrument for the overall culture of education in Kenya and for the success of parents in appropriating and owning the instrument for purposes of feedback.Having demonstrated the key role that parents have to play, the government’s role in the future of national educational progress does not diminish, but becomes even greater. There is now a strong case to be made for the government to launch campaigns to raise national long-term awareness and conscientiousness of the scientifically based theory that there is not just a strong correlation but a causal connection between parental educational enfranchisement, and holistic pupil performance and well-being -- hence better learning outcomes. There should be periodic institutional empirical tracking to establish long, medium and short-term trends among SRC categories in different counties across the country.


7: Recommendations The fact that parents are detached from their children’s’ education could be interpreted as evidence of lack of knowledge about the power they possess in determining their children’s success. There is need for a nationwide awareness campaign with parents as the focus to tell them how important their role is for ensuring a brighter future for the next generations of economic, social and cultural growth in a developing country like Kenya. A large part of development, of making the transition from a developing country to a developed country, is to develop the infrastructure for education, and the School Report Card is a an essential vehicle that is part of this infrastructure.To clearly see the impact of the SRC, it ought to be conducted every year. By doing so, it would be possible to look at the trends across the SRC categories at the national level and at the county level. This will enable observation, infer and hopefully predict the relationship of SRC categories and learning outcomes so as to position the key actors to come up with measures to ameliorate them.Key recommendations proposed are geared towards improving learning outcomes and have been purposely disaggregated into three different levels as follows:

Policy Implications• The MOE should ensure that every school should has an elected SMC each year, and for better

school management, the SMC should receive some form of capacity building• The Ministry of Education and the TSC should have a system of transferring teachers regularly in

order to deal with the “overstayed” head teachers/teachers culture• The government and the TSC should ensure enough teachers are employed in order to serve

schools adequately, but the available teachers should be evenly distributed in order to ameliorate the biases in different regions.

• The school management should be restructured to have clear reporting and accountability chains that link parents and the schools. This will facilitate transparency and accountability on utilization of school resources.

• It should be reinforced that it is mandatory for schools to make publicly available books of accounts as required by the MOE policy.

• The MOE should be more vigilant to ensure effective and efficient resource utilization, including extra monies levied in the school. There should be a deliberate move by the MOE to promote school-community partnerships. SRC as a tool can be utilized to develop school-community action plans to mobilize communities to provide support for delivery of quality education service.

• The current education Bill and the space provided in the new constitutional dispensation should seek to strengthen accountability frameworks in MOE and provide a platform from which social accountability feeds into the entire learning outcomes process.

Implication on Learning Environment• Good sanitation facilities and nutritional wellbeing of pupils enhances teaching and learning,

thereby contributing to improved academic performance. The government should not only improve access to water and sanitation facilities in schools but also enhance and embrace home grown school feeding programmes especially in arid, semi-arid areas and informal settlements.

• School safety is a fundamental and indispensable component of the teaching and learning process. TSC and the relevant authorities should strengthen the code of conduct to deal with


sexual harassment in line with the new dispensation and be consistently applied against the perpetrators by relevant authorities to deter this vice.

• School infrastructure plays a significant role in providing a conducive environment for learning as it facilitates the daily operations in the school community. The government, through the infrastructure development funds, should ensure provision of adequate facilities and infrastructure in order to have the teachers and the pupils interact in an environment that is friendly.

Implications on Performance Outcome• There is need for deeper engagement with key players in education sector, more so the Teachers

Service Commission and other key players in the education sector like the Ministry of Education, Kenya National Union of Teachers, Kenya Primary School Heads Association, Parents Teachers Associations and other partners in seeking to address the rampant cases of teacher absenteeism.

• The Ministry of Education should carry out a baseline survey on free primary education capitation grant with view to increasing the amount awarded per child as recommended by 31.7 per cent of the parents surveyed, and in the same breath undertake a thorough audit of how the capitation funds are utilized -- especially in relation to the procurement of learning and instructional materials.

• There is need to strengthen linkages between SRC committees and other community leaders in order to build a strong citizen voice to demand quality education.

• There is need for strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Education officials at the district level, i.e. the DEOs and DQASOs, to make them more responsive to parents’ complaints about poor service delivery in schools.


For further information, contact; National Taxpayers AssociationRiara Gardens, Off Riara Road,

P.O. Box 4037 - 00506, Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 20 3861813 - 4 Fax: +254 20 3861813

Email: [email protected]: www.nta.or.ke