Implications of pricing guidelines on the quality of education Of sub-county secondary Schools in Busia county, Kenya

Abstract

The academic performance of public secondary schools in Busia County in the national examinations has been declining for the past three consecutive years below the national mean scores of 3.96 in 2018, 4.30 in 2019 and 4.53 in 2020 with the county attaining 3.80 in 2018, 3.68 in 2019 and 3.51 in 2020, the worst affected being Sub county schools compared to the neighbouring counties. Pricing as a strategic decision avails finances to schools for purchasing resources with which to offer services. For a county like Busia with high poverty index of 69.3% against national poverty index of 38.6%, there could be challenges of resourcing schools for quality attainment. The purpose of this study was to determine the implications of pricing guidelines on the quality of education in public sub-county secondary schools in Busia County, Kenya. The objectives were to: Establish the implications of pricing guidelines on the provision of infrastructural facilities for attainment of quality education; Analyze the implications of the pricing guidelines on the availability of and remuneration of human resources to facilitate processes of teaching and learning for quality education; Determine the influence of the pricing guidelines on the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education Results (KCSE) and to determine the pricing guidelines that ensure optimal price for quality education. The study was informed by the Education Production Function. Descriptive survey and correlational research designs were used. Target population constituted 114 public Sub county secondary schools from Busia County, and 7 Sub county Directors of Education. Stratified random sampling was used to select 60 schools (principals), and purposive sampling to select 7 Sub County Directors of education for the study. Questionnaires for principals, interview schedule for sub county directors of education; observation checklist and document analysis guide were used to collect data. Face and content validity of the instruments were reviewed by experts in Planning and Economics of Education in Maseno University. The researcher pre-tested the instruments using 10 schools and a Pearson- r value of .80. Quantitative data was analyzed by use of percentages, mean scores, correlation and multiple linear regressions. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis. The findings indicated that the pricing guidelines did not provide adequate infrastructure as there was shortage of 110 classrooms, 117 laboratories and 279 doors of toilets. The pricing guidelines did not sufficiently address the employment and remuneration of human resource as there was shortage of 561 teachers with a deficit of sh.24, 216,084 required for their remuneration. There was a positive significant relationship between the fee paid to schools per student with mean scores in KCSE with a coefficient of determination of .120 (r =.346, p < 0.01). The pricing guidelines did not ensure optimal price for quality education. The study recommended that the Ministry of Education should revise the formula for pricing sub county secondary schools to address the salient needs of each school in order to enable them acquire resources with which to offer quality education. This study might help the Ministry of Education to formulate pricing guidelines policies that would ensure that public sub county secondary schools get sufficient resources to ascertain quality education. It might also be of help to academicians, researchers and scholars who may be interested in financing of schools and quality of education.