MALINI SIVASUBRAMANIAM UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 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
Social capital and parental decision-making structures: Evidence from low-fee private schools in Kibera, Kenya
Jun 07, 2015
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.
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.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MALINI SIVASUBRAMANIAMUNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
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 conference12 October 2012
OVERVIEW
Research background, purpose and contextLow-cost schools in KenyaMethodologyResults Concluding Thoughts
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
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?
Conceptual Framework for study
Social Capital conceptual Framework
Draws on Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s conceptualizations of social capital.
Social capital survey adapted from Ferguson (2002)
Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s Capitals Operationalized as Indicators usedCultural Capital Human Capital 1) Mother’s educational level
2) Father’s educational level3) Child’s current school status (if
enrolled in correct class level for age)
Social Capital Family Capital 1) Family structure2) Quality of parent-child relationship3) Adult’s interest in child4) Parent’s monitoring of child’s activities5) Degree of extended family exchange
and supportCommunity Capital Community Capital 1) Perception of the quality of the
neighbourhood2) Social support networks3) Civic engagement4) Trust and safety5) Group membership6) School satisfaction7) School choice processes
Spiritual Capital Spiritual Capital 1) Degree of religiosity2) Level of church or spiritual community
involvement3) Church membership4) Identified religion5) Level of church or spiritual community
activities involvementEconomic Capital Financial Capital 1) Total household income
2) Public assistance3) Kin financial help4) Financial support networks5) Economic hardship6) Perceived financial need7) School-related expenses
Methodology
Research Site: One district in the slum of KiberaSchools: Area Cluster Sampling of 5 schoolsSampling 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
Government School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4Year established 1953 1994 1998 2000 1994Number of years in present premise* 54 8 8 7 13Category of school type Public Individual
proprietorCommunity-based/INGO
INGO Faith-based
Partners None None First love, USA Childlife international, Netherlands
Survival Ministries, Anglican Church of Kenya
Registered with City Council of Nairobi
Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services
Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services
Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services
Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services
Grades offered 1-8 Nursery, 1-6 1-8 1-7 1-8Reported total enrolment 2233 135 341 548 265Teacher-student ratio 1:67 1:22 1:24 1:45 1:26Number of trained teachers 33 0 11 9 5Number of support staff 6 2 5 11 3Fee collected/month(Ksh) 50 150 300 none 150Fee concessions No Yes Yes Yes YesSponsored pupils 0 0 4 0 0Reported no. of free and concessionary places
26 4 10 All 10
Number of Classrooms 36 7 11 9 5Water Yes No Yes Yes YesElectricity Yes No Yes Yes NoNumber of toilets 20 3 16 5 4Playground Yes No Yes No NoSchool feeding program Yes, World
Feeding Program and Feed the children
YES, Feed the Children
Yes, World Food Program and First Love, USA
Yes, World Food Program
Yes, World Food Program
Math textbook ratio in Class 1 1:2 1:19 1:4 1:6 1:3Math textbook ratio in Class 7 1:1 1:6^ 1:3 1:4 1:2Textbook funding received from Ministry
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Classroom construction material Brick, concrete floors
Mud-walled, dirt floor
Brick Part brick/part mud-walled
Mud-walled, dirt floor
Table XXXX Summary of Focus School profiles
Descriptive Demographic Data for the Households in the study
Public School Households 51.4% of children in the correct
class for age
Higher percentage of Muslim HH (29%)
Tend to be longer term residents of Kibera (< 5 yrs 11%)
More dual parent households (73%)
Mothers with no education or primary incomplete (35%), Fathers (21%)
Mothers employed at home (63%), full-time (6%)
LFPS Households 26% of children in correct class
for age
Only 10% Muslim HH
Tend to be more recent migrants to Kibera (< 5 years 28%)
Fewer Dual Parent Households (60%)
Mothers with no education or primary incomplete (52%), Fathers (31%)
Mothers employed at home (40%), full-time (13%)
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.
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.
Profile of HHs based on study findings
Public Fewer mothers with no ed
or primary incomplete More financial trouble and
worry More verbal
encouragement Longer term Kibera
residents More HHs of Nubian
ethnicity More mothers who worked
at home
LFP Higher number of mothers
with no ed or primary incomplete.
Higher religious community attendance
Higher number of pupils in incorrect class for age
Higher school expenditure Fewer financial networks to
draw upon More shared activities with
children Mothers tend to work outside
the home
Public(N= 109) LFP (N=100)
Reasons for choice % %I.Practical considerations (total)(i) safe(ii) Proximity(iii) Feeding program(iv) Other siblings in the school
(40.9)1.129.01.19.7
(25.1)1.116.04.04.0
II. Access(total)(i)Availability of space(ii)Easier admission
(20.4)16.14.3
(17.0)12.05.0
III.School quality(total)(i)Good discipline(ii)Good teaching(iii)Higher academic standards(iv)Good performance record(v)Smaller class sizes
(20.4)0.03.214.03.20.0
(46)3.07.021.0123.0
IV. Financial considerations(total)(i)Fee concessions(ii)Affordability(iii)Child sponsorship(iv)Flexible fee payment(v) FPE(vi) School offerd assistance
(65.6)1.129.00.00.035.50.0
(59.0)5.035.03.07.00.09.0
V. Community Social Capital(total)(i)Parent former pupil(ii)Other people recommended(iii) Attend community group here(iv)Teacher/Staff is a friend(v) School is community-based(vi)School supportive of HIV AIDS parents(vii)Neighbour’s child enrolled here(viii)Teacher/staff understanding
(13.0)8.60.00.01.12.20.00.01.1
(31.0)0.010.04.04.00.02.07.04.0
VI. Peripheral Reasons(total)(i)Child selected(ii)No particular reason
(4.2)1.03.2
(6.0)1.05.0
Comparing ranked relative importance of reasons given by public and LFP school households for choosing their current school
Public school households1. Financial considerations2. Practical considerations3. Access4. School Quality5. Community Social Capital6. Peripheral Considerations
LFP households1. Financial considerations2. School Quality3. Community Social Capital4. Practical considerations5. Access6. Peripheral considerations
Some Concluding Thoughts
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.
Emergence of what can be described as three kinds of choosers of LFPS: Default, Strategic and Active
Related Documents
