The period immediately after independence saw a large influx of rural-urban migrants seeking economic opportunities in the highly concentrated manufacturing and service industries in major towns. The migrations gave rise to unplanned settlements in towns and cities, which came to be referred to as ‘slums’, ‘urban squatters’, ‘informal settlements’ or ‘self-organized settlements’. The Kenya Government Policy on District Focus for Rural Development (DFRD, 1985) failed to address the situation, since resources remained concentrated in towns and cities. Unplanned settlements continued to grow to a level where the ‘slum’ populations exceeded ‘non-slum’ city populations. These settlements are characterized by the absence of adequate social amenities such as schools and hospitals. The Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) of the 1980s introduced cost-sharing policies that further marginalized disadvantaged children, resulting in a higher drop-out rate from formal schools. Some dropouts enrolled in adult classes which, despite their low cost, were not tailored to their needs. Limited availability of formal schools in the informal settlements coupled with the high indirect cost of education in government schools, contributed further to marginalization.
In 2003, in the advent of Free Primary Education (FPE), the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST) in collaboration with development partners sought to provide broad policy frameworks to ease and facilitate the participation of a wide variety of service providers. These providers were registered under different Government departments such as Office of the President, State Law Office, Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Education. In addition to providing education, the institutions provided a variety of programmes such as health, nutrition, counselling and social services. A number of the providers operated without registration since these provisions did not satisfy the formal schools regulations in terms of acreage, staffing, facilities and curriculum they came to be categorized as non-formal schools.
The various providers were instrumental in initiating APBET complementary schools (formerly known as Non-formal schools).
In 2009, the MoEST developed the policy for Alternative Basic Education and Training (APBET) to integrate the education and training institutions into the mainstream Programme by ensuring that the ‘non-formal’ education sub-sector was included in the national education statistics.
Owing to poverty, hardship and challenges in the urban informal settlements and other socio-economic, ethno-cultural and geo-political issues, there exists a cadre of schools that cannot meet registration criteria for regular public or private institutions. Cognizant of these challenges, and awake to the APBET Policy (2009), Basic Education Act of 2013, Section 95 (3)(i) and (j) provides that the Cabinet Secretary may, upon consultation with the National Education Board, prescribe regulations on how schools shall be classified, and make different provisions with respect to different classes or kinds of schools, impose conditions and make exemptions. The APBET institutions complement the government’s efforts to provide education and training for all.