Value for Money in Secondary Education: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Boarding and Day Schools in Kenya

Value for Money in Secondary Education: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Boarding and Day Schools in Kenya

Dr Viviline Ngeno

University of Kabianga

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000757

Received: 04 October 2025; Accepted: 12 October 2025; Published: 29 October 2025

Basic Education, which is the cornerstone of schooling, is a right of every child globally. This kind of education equips learners with pivotal skills crucial for holistic development.  However, amid limited financial resources and lack of guidance parents end up choosing a school that does not meet the needs of their children.  Research has revealed that students in boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County usually perform better in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) Examinations than those in day secondary schools. This finding has further escalated the debate on whether boarding schools are better than day schools. Whichever the case, the debate on cost effectiveness of educating children in boarding or day secondary school has not been concluded. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish the cost effectiveness analysis of educating students in boarding and day secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County. This study was guided by the following specific objectives: to determine the direct private and social costs of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools; to examine the performance of students in KCSE in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County and to explain the cost effectiveness ratio of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County.  This study was grounded in a theoretical framework that focused on the variables of direct private costs, social costs and performance in KCSE. A descriptive research design was employed; the study population consisted of 20 Secondary School Principals (10 from day schools and 10 from boarding schools). Simple random sampling technique was used to select the respondents. Questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis guide were used to collect data. Reliability of the Questionnaire and interview schedule were established through a pilot study. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in form of percentages and means. Qualitative data was coded, transcribed and emergent themes established. The study revealed that students in boarding schools performed better than those in day schools in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) Examinations. This study thus concluded that it is more cost effective to educate students in boarding than in day schools.

Key words: Cost Effectiveness Ratio, Total Direct Costs, KCSE mean scores.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Education is one of the largest public investments worldwide, and governments increasingly seek to ensure that every shilling spent produces maximum benefits in terms of learning outcomes, completion rates, and equity (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018; World Bank, 2018). The concept of Value for Money (VfM) in education puts emphasis not only on reducing costs but also ensuring that resources are used economically, efficiently, effectively, and equitably to deliver quality education (OECD, 2015; Levin & McEwan, 2001).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) according to Woodhall (2004) is a tool that is designed to assist in choosing among alternative courses of action when resources are limited. Put differently, it is an economic evaluation method used to compare the costs of alternative interventions relative to their outcomes. According to Levin (2009), most educational decisions face constraints in the availability of budgetary and allocation of other resources. CEA examines the resources used in terms of costs to results achieved to determine which option provides better value for money (Levin & McEwan, 2001). Unlike cost-benefit analysis, which assigns a monetary value to outcomes, CEA maintains outcomes in their original form in terms of test scores, graduation rates, or survival rates etc. It then calculates the cost per unit of outcome (Drummond et al., 2015). In education, CEA is widely applied to evaluate the efficiency of investments, such as comparing the cost per additional student completing secondary school or the cost per improvement in examination performance between different types of schools or programs (Levin, 1983; Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2018).

Direct costs incurred in education are categorized into two namely: social and private direct costs. Social direct costs are the actual monetary expenditures incurred by governments, households, and communities in financing the provision of education. They include resources spent on items such as teachers’ salaries, instructional materials, school buildings, administration, tuition, and other operational expenses directly related to running schools (Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1985; Levin & McEwan, 2001). Social direct costs are easily identifiable and measurable through public accounts and household education expenditure surveys (Belfield & Levin, 2015).

Direct private costs on the other hand, are the expenses borne by households and individuals in the process of acquiring education. These are monetary expenditures directly paid by students or their families to support schooling, and they include tuition fees or levies paid to schools, uniforms and sportswear, textbooks and stationery, examination fees, transportation, boarding expenses and miscellaneous charges such as activity fees or development contributions. Direct private costs are particularly important in developing countries where household contributions remain substantial despite government subsidies (Psacharopoulos & Woodhall, 1985; Colclough et al., 2009).

Educational outcomes or mean scores refer to the measurable results of the teaching and learning process. They are indicators of the extent to which educational objectives such as knowledge acquisition, skills development, and personal growth are achieved (UNESCO, 2017). Commonly assessed outcomes include academic achievement, completion and survival rates, transition to higher levels of education, employability, and life skills. The most widely used indicators of academic outcomes is mean score performance in standardized examinations. A mean score represents the average performance of a group of students in a particular assessment, often expressed numerically. In Kenya, Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) and the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) mean scores are frequently used to evaluate the effectiveness of schools, teachers, and education policies (Ministry of Education, 2020).

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to establish the cost effectiveness analysis of educating students in boarding and day secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County. Research Objectives

 This study was guided by the following specific objectives:

1. To determine the total direct costs of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya.
2. To examine the academic performance of the students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya.
3. To explain the cost effectiveness ratio of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya

Research Question

The following research questions were derived from the above objectives.

• What are the total direct costs of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya?
• How is the academic performance of the students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya?
• What is the cost effectiveness ratio of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya?

SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE

Using a sample of 5,660 seventh-grade students from 160 rural junior high schools across 19 counties, Chang, et al., (2023) carried out a study on the impact of boarding schools on the development of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities in adolescents in rural northwest China. The study employed an instrumental variables (IV) approach to identify a causal relationship between boarding and student abilities. It revealed that boarding positively influences memory and attention while it has no significant effect on other cognitive abilities such as reasoning, transcription speed, and accuracy.  The study further noted that there was no significant association between boarding and the development of non-cognitive skills. This study highlights the need to improve school management to promote the development of students’ cognitive abilities and integrate non-cognitive or social-emotional abilities into students’ daily routines. This study concluded that with the widespread prevalence of boarding schools in rural regions in China. This study differs from the current in several ways for instance, while its focus was the impact of boarding schools on the development of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities in adolescents in rural northwest China, the current was interested in comparing boarding and day secondary schools with the aim of finding out which of the two is cost effective. This study was carried out in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya while the former in China. While the present was interested in students in high schools in both rural and urban settings, the former was interested in those in junior schools in rural areas.

Binji, M. B., Sokoto,A. M &  Dankal, U. U (2020) did a study on  Comparative Analysis of Students’ Performance in Mathematics between Boarding and Day Secondary Schools in Sokoto State, Nigeria. This study compared the mathematics performance of Boarding and Day secondary school students’ in Sokoto State. The target population used by the study was all SS-2 students promoted to SS-3 in Boarding and Day secondary schools in Sokoto State. Eight secondary schools were chosen for the study. Proportionate sampling technique was used to sample 728 SS-2 students from eight secondary schools which consist of 2 males’ Boarding senior secondary schools, 2 females’ Boarding senior secondary schools, 2 males’ Day senior secondary schools and 2 females’ Day senior secondary in Sokoto metropolis. The results of mathematics promotion examination of 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 sessions were used for the research. Data was analyzed using t-test. The study found that female students performed better in mathematics than male students in Sokoto State. This study was basically done on performance in mathematics while the current study is on overall performance. The number of schools used in this study was fewer compared to the current study.

Ngetich, Wambua, and Kosgei (2014) carried out a study on determination of Unit Cost among Secondary Schools in Kenya: A Case of Nandi North District, Kenya.  This study employed a descriptive survey design and was guided by a Cost Model derived from the General Education Production Function. The data was collected from all the Head teachers of public and private secondary schools in Nandi North District, Kenya. The research instrument used in collecting data was structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistical techniques in form of percentages, means and frequency tables were used to analyse data. The findings indicate that the average unit cost per district school was Ksh 34,849 whereas the average unit cost for a provincial school was Ksh. 50,966. Private schools had an average of Ksh.35, 778 while public had an average of Ksh.43, 219. Mixed day schools incurred the least unit cost of Ksh. 33,309. This study is instrumental to the current in the sense that it also looked at the unit cost among secondary schools in Kenya albeit from a general perspective. Additionally, it informed the current with regard to the research design used. The point of divergence however, between this and the current study is that while it was conducted in Nandi North District, Kenya, the current was carried out in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya. The former study had respondents from both public and private secondary schools while the current used respondents from public schools only. The data collection instruments employed in the two studies were also different with the former using only one instrument which a structured questionnaire while the current employed three namely: Questionnaire, interview schedule and a document analysis guide.

A study conducted by Kirui, Wamukuru, and Flora (2022) on the Influence of School Type on Cost Efficiency in Public Secondary Schools in Bomet County, Kenya revealed that there was a statistically significant influence of school type on the cost efficiency of the schools. The study further noted that gender played a critical role in the costs incurred by schools that is, costs of operating girls’ schools were found to be higher than those of boys’ schools. This study was pivotal to the current since it provided background information on which the current study was established. Moreover, it informed the current with regard to sampling techniques as well as data collection instruments. The two studies however differ with regard to the respondents used while the Bomet study used school principals and Sub-County Directors of Education, the Kericho one only used principals. Additionally, there were differences in the number of respondents used with the former using 180 while the current, 20.

In a study that discussed the impact of homebased costs on students’ transition rate in tiers of 12 years education in Rwanda, Kiruru1i, Mogaka, and Pierre, (2024) reveal that the costs of school uniform, school material, home-coaching and transport could be highly correlated with students transition rate in tiers of 12YBE, particularly in O’ level.  The study notes that basic education stakeholders should understand that the realistic fee-free structure put in place by the Government of Rwanda must go together with a sustainable programme of students’ financial assistance. This study is instrumental to the present because it provides crucial information on the concept of costs in schools that is the focus of the current study. The two studies are however different in certain perspectives for instance, while the former study was interested in the direct private costs, the current’s focus was on both social and private direct costs. Another difference is in the study area (the former was carried out in Rwanda while the latter, Kenya). The former used regression analysis while the latter descriptive statistics and thematic analyses. Additionally, the former was interested in costs and how they affect transition rates while the current was interested in the costs and their impacts on performance in national examinations. Lastly, the former study used headteachers and parents as respondents while the current used headteachers only.

Jeptanui, (2024) carried out a study on the Correlation between Hidden Educational Costs and Students’ Transition Rates in Public Boarding Secondary Schools in Kenya. This research established that hidden educational expenditures have a statistically negative correlation with students’ transition rates in public boarding schools. This study is similar to the current since it also investigated the impact of educational costs in secondary schools. On the contrary, it differs from the current since it looks at the hidden costs and their impact on students’ transition rates in public boarding secondary schools while the current looks at social and private direct costs and how they impact performance of students in both boarding and day secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya. Another difference is in the methodology used; the former employed a convergent parallel mixed methods design while the current a descriptive research and Ex-post facto survey designs. 34 principals and 3,917 parents were targeted in the former research while in the current twenty principals were used to get data. Proportional random sampling aided in the choice of parents in the former study while simple random sampling technique was employed to get informants in the current study. Interviews, questionnaires, and archive content analysis were used to collect data in the former while questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis guide were used in the current.

Guided by Cost Function derived from the Education Production Function theory, Ngetich, (2020) carried out a study on a Comparison of Academic Performance of Learners in Day and Boarding Secondary Schools in Nandi County, Kenya. The study found out that there was a significant difference in academic performance between Boarding and Day secondary schools (t (121) = 9.990, p = 0.000).  The point of convergence between this and the current study is that both were interested in finding out the performance of secondary school students in boarding and day schools. The current study indeed confirms the finding that learners in boarding schools perform better that those in day. The points of divergence however, is that while the former study employed a cross-sectional survey as a research strategy, the current used descriptive and Ex-post facto survey designs.  While the former targeted all the principals in 186 public secondary schools in the Nandi County, the current sampled 20 principals in Kericho County. The data analysis methods also differed with the former using frequency, means, range, percentages and t-test while the latter using descriptive statistics in form of percentages and means ad thematic analysis.

Kosgei and Keter, (2016) carried out a study on the Conflict and Trade-offs Between Efficiency and Access: A Case of Day and Boarding Secondary Schools in Kenya.  The purpose of this study was to find ways of making secondary school education more accessible and efficient given that day schools are considered to be more accessible but inefficient while boarding schools are less accessible but efficient. This study used purposive sampling to select the headteachers of 12 day and 14 boarding schools and 296 form four students in Uasin-Gishu district. This study revealed that students in boarding schools generally have better study facilities, receive professional and more supervisory support. It further revealed that long distance walked to school had negative impact on student performance and lastly students in boarding schools had more time available for their studies. This study informed the current with regard to student performance in secondary schools. The factors that played critical roles in this performance were indirectly linked to costs that is, there are financial implications involved in the achievement of quality performance. The two studies were different because while the former used form four students in the sampled schools in Uasin-Gishu district, the current used principals only in the sampled day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County.

A study on Cost Effectiveness Analysis between Boarding and Day Secondary Students in Kenya was done by Jagero, Ayodo and Agak, (2011).  This research employed descriptive survey and casual comparative designs. The sampling techniques used in the study were saturated and systematic random sampling.  The sample size used were five schools, five head teachers, 46 form four teachers and 201 students. The study revealed that the total direct social cost of educating a day and a boarding student per year was Ksh 62, 193 and Ksh74, 140 respectively. It further revealed that the day students performed better than the boarding ones with a mean of 8.12 and 7.27 respectively. Boys performed better than the girls with a mean of 8.01 and 7.27 respectively. The cost effectiveness ratio (CER) for the day and boarding student was Ksh7, 748 and Ksh10, 005. This study is critical to the current because it presents a contradictory finding in relation to the performance of students in secondary schools. While previous studies have supported the assertion that students in boarding schools perform better than those in day schools, this study points to a contrary view with the reasons for this opposing view aptly explained.  Further differences between the former and the current studies are brought to perspective for example, the current study employed Ex-post facto and descriptive survey designs while the former employed descriptive survey and casual comparative designs. The sampling techniques employed were also different for example, the former made use of saturated and systematic random sampling while the current, the simple random sampling. Additionally, the respondents used in the study were different with the former using form four students, form four teachers and headteachers of the sampled schools while the current only used headteachers.

Similarly a Cost Effectiveness analysis of educating girls in day and boarding secondary schools in Kenya by Ngeno, V.C., Simatwae, E.M.W. & Ayodo, T.M.O. (2012). But this study focused on the girls only.  Descriptive research design was used in the study while the current study employed Ex-post facto, descriptive and comparative research designs was used in the current study. While the former employed descriptive survey and casual comparative designs.    The sampling techniques used in the study were saturated and systematic random sampling.  The sample size used were six schools, six head teachers, 82 teachers and 150 form four girls’. The study found that the boarders performed better than day scholars. The day scholars had a mean of 3.19 while the boarders had 3.47 in the five schools. The study also found that it was more cost effective to educate girls in day schools compared to boarding schools. This is because the parents and the government used on average Kshs 14,804.55 to improve the grade of a day scholar and Kshs 17,997.49 to improve the grade of a girl child in boarding school. The study concluded that it was more cost effective to educate girls in day secondary schools compared to boarding secondary schools. This study is similar critical to the current because it presents a contradictory finding in relation to the performance of students in secondary schools. While previous studies have supported the assertion that students in boarding schools perform better than those in day schools, this study points to a contrary view with the reasons for this opposing view aptly explained.  Further differences between the former and the current studies are brought to perspective for example, the current study employed Ex-post facto, comparative and descriptive research designs while the former employed descriptive and ex post facto reseach designs. The sampling techniques employed were also different for example, the former made use of saturated and systematic random sampling while the current, the simple random sampling technique. Additionally, the respondents used in the study were different with the former using form four girls, teachers and head teachers of the sampled schools while the current only used head teachers.

Theoretical Framework

The theory that was used in this study is an efficiency theory referred to as the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Theory. This theory was developed in the 1950s by the United States Department of Defense as a device for adjusting the demands of the various branches of the armed services for increasing costly weapons systems with different levels of performance and overlapping missions (Hitch & McKean, 1960). Cost-effectiveness analysis emerged in the 1960s as an important method for choosing among costly weapons systems. Gradually the tools of cost-effectiveness analysis made their way from the Pentagon to other government agencies with President Lyndon Johnson’s requirement that all budgetary requests be supported by a program-planning-budgeting system that tied mission and goals to costs. Over subsequent decades, advances were made in refining the techniques and improving their user-friendliness (Levin, 1975, 2001).  In sum, the purpose of this theory is to compare the inputs used and the outputs achieved in any institution be it public or otherwise.

Levin, the first economist of education to use cost effectiveness analysis in early 1970s, wanted to establish cost effectiveness analysis as a useful evaluative tool in the field of education and other areas of human service. Therefore, he used data from Coleman (1966) to compare the cost effectiveness of two alternative strategies for teacher selection; hiring of more teachers that are experienced or those with higher verbal test scores (Levin, 2001).  Analysts can obtain a program’s cost – effectiveness (CE) ratio by dividing costs by what we term units of effectiveness. He used the following formula.

Cost-Effectiveness Ratio = Total Cost/Units of Effectiveness

     CER =         Cost of Educating a Secondary School student/Performance in KCSE examinations

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study was done in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya. The research designs that were adopted were descriptive, Comparative and Ex-post facto   research designs. It adopted a descriptive research design in which vivid descriptions of educational phenomena were given and reports made with regard to the way things were.  Descriptive research design is significant because it explores the relationship between variables the way it occurred in their natural settings (Sproul 1988). Twenty boarding and day secondary schools in the sub counties were sampled and   questionnaires were administered to the school principals to establish the fees paid by the parents and the government. Questionnaires are frequently used in descriptive researches because they are crucial for obtaining facts about current conditions and are useful in making inquiries concerning views and opinions (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). Comparative research design was also employed in this study. This was relevant in this current study since there was a comparison between cost effective analysis of day and boarding schools in the sub counties. This is a non-experimental design in which the researcher systematically compares two or more groups, cases, phenomena, or situations to identify similarities and differences. The main purpose is to gain insights into relationships, patterns, and outcomes without manipulating variables. Comparative studies in education focus on identifying, analyzing, and explaining similarities and differences across educational systems, institutions, or groups (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). Ex-post facto research design was also used in this study. This design seeks to discover possible causes of behaviour, which have already occurred and cannot be manipulated (Gall, Gall & Borg, 1996). For the purpose of this study ex-post facto design allowed the researcher to get all the direct private and social costs.

The study population was 43 secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub counties, Kericho County. The sample size used was twenty (20) which consist of 46.51% of the secondary schools in the two counties. Ten day and ten boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut sub counties, Kericho County. This was found to be suitable and sufficient for this study. Gay, Mills & Airasian (2012) states that when selecting a sample, researchers often use a percentage of the population to ensure that the sample is representative, in educational research, samples of 10% to 30% are often sufficient. Simple random sampling technique was used to sample the schools. This is a probability sampling technique in which every individual in the population has an equal and independent chance of being selected to be part of the sample. It ensures fairness and minimizes bias in sample selection. Creswell (2012) defines Simple random sampling is a procedure in which all the individuals in the population have an equal probability of being selected, and the selection of one individual is independent of another. This was used to select the 20 schools used in this study from the two counties.

Quantitative data collected through questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive statistics in the form of percentages and means while the qualitative data collected using an interview schedule was analyzed thematically. The cost effectiveness ratio was derived by relating all the costs and the performance of each student to get the ratio. The average ratios of all the boarding students were calculated separately from that of the day scholars in all the ten schools, the same was done for day scholars. The CER formula adapted in this study was that of Levin (2001). The Analysis was obtain where a program’s cost – effectiveness (CE) ratio by dividing costs in what we term units of effectiveness. He used the following formula. Which was adapted in this study. The CER for day scholars and boarders was done separately.

Cost-Effectiveness Ratio = Total Cost/Units of Effectiveness

CER =         Cost of Educating a Secondary School student/Performance in KCSE examinations

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1 School Principals Demographic Information (n=20)

Table 1 gives the demographic characteristics of the respondents in all the 20 (100%) schools. Eleven (55%) were males while 9 (45%) females. Those who had experience below 3 years were 2 (10%), between 5 to 7 years were 12 (60%) while 7 and above were 6(30%). From the information given, the school principals had enough experience to give all the social and private costs in the school as well as information on the KCSE means scores.

Direct Total Costs incurred in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County

The first objective of the study was to determine the direct total costs of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut sub counties, Kericho County, Kenya. The costs in education were determined using Kenya Shilling (KSH). This was addressed in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5

Table 2 Total Direct Costs of Educating students in Day Schools as indicated by the school principals (n=10)

Table 2 indicates the direct social and private costs incurred by the government and parents to educate students in day schools A- J. The average direct social costs were 328,353.50(35.82%) while the private ones were 588,438 (64.18%). The lowest total costs paid per school is Kshs 336,310 while the highest is Kshs 1,494,681. Table 3 shows the total direct costs incurred per student in day schools in Ainamoi and Belgut sub counties, Kericho County.

Table 3 Total Direct Costs Incurred per Student in day schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=10)

Table 3 reveals that the lowest amount incurred by both the government and parents to educate students in day school is Kshs 18,765 while the highest is Kshs 42,038.75. The average costs incurred by the government and parents to educate a student in day school is Ksh 29,921.32. Table 4 shows the total costs of educating students in boarding schools in school A-J.

Table 4 Total Costs of Educating students in boarding Schools as indicated by the school principals (n=10)

From Table 4, it is evident that the social and private costs incurred varied from one boarding school to another in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County. The average direct social costs incurred were 328,353.50(35.82%) while the private was 588,438 (64.18%). The lowest direct total cost was Ksh 564,816 while the highest was Ksh 10,791,571. The study further revealed that costs incurred depended on the number of students per school. Table 5 shows the direct total costs per student in boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut bub Counties, Kericho County.

Table 5 Direct Total Costs per student in boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=10)

Table 5 reveals that the amounts incurred by both the government and parents to educate students in boarding school ranges from Kshs 28,965 to Kshs 54,229. The average costs incurred by parents and the government to educate a student in boarding school is Ksh 39,286.50. This study’s finding is supported by the one done by Ngetich, Wambua, and Kosgei (2014) which also found that the direct costs incurred varied depending on the type of school.  Ngetich, Wambua, and Kosgei (2014) further note that a total of Ksh. 363,383,481 was spent for the entire district translating into an average of Ksh. 8,863,012 per school or Ksh.41, 768 per student. Additionally, Ksh.31, 332,348 was the least amount spent on the direct costs while Ksh.1, 586,940 was the highest. The findings also indicate that the average unit cost per district school was Ksh 34,849, whereas the average unit cost for the provincial schools was Ksh. 50,966. Private schools had an average of Ksh.35, 778 while public had Ksh.43, 219.  Lastly, mixed day schools incurred the least unit cost of Ksh. 33,309. Another study that corroborates the finding that the direct costs incurred educating children in boarding is higher than in day secondary schools is the one done by Kirui, Wamukuru, and Flora (2022) which noted that there is a statistically significant influence of school type on the cost efficiency of secondary schools. Jagero, Ayodo and Agak (2011) further resonate this finding by noting that the total direct social cost of educating a day and a boarding secondary school student per year was Ksh 62, 193 and Ksh74, 140 respectively.  This means that students in boarding secondary schools incur more expenses compared to those in day.

 Academic outcomes in terms of KCSE Means Scores in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County

The second objective sought to examine the academic performance of the students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County, Kenya. This was addressed in Tables 6, 7 and 8. Table 6 shows students KCSE means scores in day schools as indicated by the school principals.

Table 6 The students KCSE means Scores in Day schools as indicated by the school principals (n=10)

Table 6 revealed that the lowest mean score for a day school was 3.41 while the highest was 6.40. The average means score for day schools was 4.63. This score was below average. Table 7 shows the Students KCSE Means Scores in Boarding Schools as indicated by the school Principals.

Table 7 The Students KCSE Means Scores in Boarding Schools as indicated by the school Principals (n=10)

According to Table 7 the lowest mean score was 4.16 while the highest was 9.69 for the students in boarding schools. The average mean scores for students in boarding secondary schools was 6.87. This score was above average compared to the day schools. Table 8 shows the average costs and KCSE Mean scores for students in boarding and day schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County

Table 8 Average Costs and KCSE Mean scores for students in boarding and day schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=20)

Table 8 reveals that the average means score for students in day schools was 4.63 while those in boarding school was 6.87. The results indicate that students in boarding schools perform better than those in day schools. The average Direct Total Costs for day schools was Kshs 916,791.50 while for boarding was Kshs 4, 224,945.50. This study corroborates that by Ngetich, S.K, (2020) which revealed that academic performance for the period (2012-2015), recorded an average mean of 7.1184 and 4.7391 for Boarding and Day secondary schools respectively. This shows that the performance of students in boarding secondary schools was better than that of those in day. A study that also mirrors this was the one done by Ngeno, Simatwae, and Ayodo, (2012) who found that boarders performed better than day scholars with the former having a mean of 3.47 while the latter 3.19 in the five schools where the data was collected. A study that holds a contrary opinion was the one carried out by Jagero, Ayodo, and Agak, (2011) which revealed that students in day schools performed better than those in boarding. The study established that the mean score for those in day was 8.12 while those in boarding secondary schools was 7.27.  On the variable of gender, the study noted that boys performed better than the girls with a mean of 8.01 and 7.27 respectively.

Cost Effectiveness Ratio (CER)

The third objective addressed in the study was to explain the cost effectiveness ratio of educating students in day and boarding secondary schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County, Kenya. This was addressed in Tables 9, 10 and 11. The Cost Effectiveness Ratio was computed using the formula given by Cellini, (2010) in which all the direct private and social costs and the performance of students in KCSE in terms of mean scores were used. The formula is:

Cost-Effectiveness Ratio = Total Cost/Units of Effectiveness

The above formula was modified as follows;

     CER =         Cost of Educating a Secondary School students/Performance in KCSE examinations

Table 9 shows the Cost Effectiveness Ratio of Educating Students in Day Schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County.

Table 9 Cost Effectiveness Ratio of Educating Students in Day Schools in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=10)

Table 9 indicates that the total direct cost for day schools was Ksh 29,921.32 while the average means scores for the day schools was Kshs 4.63. The CER ranges from Kshs 3,635.16 per student to Kshs 12,328.08 which is the highest cost. The average CER for day schools was Kshs 6,807.76 in Ainamoi and Belgut sub counties, Kericho County. Table 10 shows Cost effectiveness Analysis Ratio of Educating Students in Boarding School in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County.

Table 10 Cost effectiveness Analysis Ratio of Educating Students in Boarding School in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=10)

Table 10 indicates that the average total direct costs incurred by the student was Kshs 39,286.50 while the average means score for the 10 schools was 6.87. The CER ranges from Kshs 3,734.98 per student to Kshs 10,182.21. The average CER for the boarding school was Ksh 5,511.95. Table 11 shows the Cost Effectiveness Ratio for Day Scholars and Boarders in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County.

Table 11 Cost Effectiveness Ratio (CER) for Day Scholars and Boarders in Ainamoi and Belgut Sub Counties, Kericho County (n=20)

According to Table 11 the CER for day scholars ranges from Kshs 3,635.16 per student to Kshs 12,328.08. For the boarders, it was ranging from Kshs 3,734.98 which is the lowest to Kshs 10,182.21 which is the highest. The average CER for the day scholars was Kshs 6,807.76 while that of boarders was Kshs 5,511.95. This study reveals it is more cost effective to educate students in boarding schools than it is in day schools. This is because according to the CER the government and parents spent more to get the output in day schools compared to boarding schools. This study does not concur with the one done by Jagero, Ayodo, and Agak (2011) who posited that the cost effectiveness ratio (CER) for the day and boarding students was Ksh7, 748 and Ksh10, 005 respectively. This study revealed that it was more cost effective to educate students in day schools than in boarding. This study is critical to the current because it presents a contradictory finding in relation to the performance of students in secondary schools. While previous studies have supported the assertion that students in boarding schools perform better than those in day schools, this study points to a contrary view with the reasons for this opposing view aptly explained.  The sample size used was also small compared to the current.

It also does not agree with the studies done by Ngeno, V.C., Simatwae, E.M.W. & Ayodo, T.M.O. (2012) carried out a study on Cost Effectiveness analysis of educating girls in day and boarding secondary schools in Kenya.  The study found that it was more cost effective to educate girls in day schools compared to boarding schools. This is because the parents and the government used on average Kshs 14,804.55 to improve the grade of a girl child in day and Kshs 17,997.49 to improve the grade of a girl child in boarding school. The study thus concluded that it was more cost effective to educate girls in day secondary schools than in boarding. The sample size used was also small with six schools used for the study. The difference between the previous studies on cost effective analysis and the current study could time and also the sample size. The current study used more schools compared to the previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that in the five schools sampled the boarders performed better than day scholars with the former displaying a mean score of 3.47 and the latter3.19. The average CER for the day scholars was Kshs 6,807.76 while for the boarders was Kshs 5,511.95. This study concluded that it is more cost effective to educate students in boarding than in day schools.  Hence it is valuable incurring costs in education because of the positive outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study recommends that further studies be done on cost effective analysis of educating students generally few studies have been done on this area.

REFERENCES

1. Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2015). Economics of education: Major contributions. Journal of Education Finance, 40(2), 103–114.
2. Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2015). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
3. Binji, M. B., Sokoto,A. M &  Dankal, U. U (2020). Comparative Analysis of Students’ Performance in Mathematics between Boarding and Day Secondary Schools in Sokoto State, Nigeria. Sapientia Foundation Journal of Education, Science and Gender Studies. VOL 2, NO 4
4. Cellini, S. (2010). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Third Edition eds Jossey Bass.
5. Chang, F & at el (2023).The impact of boarding schools on the development of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities in adolescents. National Library of Medicine. PMC10517520  PMID: 37742020. doi: 1186/s12889-023-16748-8
6. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1992). Research Methods in Education. Routledge: London. Oxford University Press.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge.
8. Colclough, C., Kingdon, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2009). The changing pattern of wage returns to education and its implications. Development Policy Review, 27(6), 733–747.
9. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
10. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
11. Gall, D.M. Gall, J.P. & Borg, R.W. (2007). Educational research, an introduction (6^th  edition) New York: Longman.
12. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
13. Jagero, N.; Ayodo, T. M.; Agak, J. A. (2011). Cost Effectiveness Analysis between Boarding and Day Secondary Students in Kenya. Africa Education Review, v8 n3 p529-550 2011
14. Jeptanui, N, (2024). A Correlation between Hidden Educational Costs and Students’ Transition Rate in Public Boarding Secondary Schools in Kenya. East African Journal of Education Studies eajes.eanso.org Volume 7, Issue 4, Print ISSN: 2707-3939 | Online ISSN: 2707-3947
15. Kirui, P.K., Wamukuru, D.K, and Flora, F (2022). Influence of School Type on Cost Efficiency in Public Secondary Schools in Bomet County, Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research. Vol. 10 No. 1
16. Kiruru1i, N.J., Mogaka, M.C., & Pierre, M.J, (2024). Schooling Hidden Costs:  The Correlation between Home-Based Costs and Students’ Transition Rate in Rwanda. European Journal of Education Studies.  Volume 7. Issue 5.
17. Kosgei, K.Z & Keter, K. J., (2016). Conflict and Trade-offs Between Efficiency and Access: A Case of Day and Boarding Secondary Schools in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice  ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper)   ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.26, 2016
18. Levin, H. M. & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Education: Methodology Examples, Use of Cost Effectiveness Analysis. 2nd edition. Thousand        Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Levin, H. M. (1975). “Cost-Effectiveness in Evaluation Research.” M. Guttentag and E. Struening, (eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research, Vol. 2. Beverly Hills,             CA:     Sage Publications.
20. Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost-Effectiveness: A Primer. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
21. Levin, H. M. (2009). “Market Reforms in Education,” with Clive Belfield, Handbook of Educational Policy New York: American Educational Research Association.
22. Levin, H. M. Glass, G. Gene V. & Meister, G. (1987). “Cost Effectiveness of Computer Assisted Instruction.” Evaluation Review 11 (1):50–72.
23. Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
24. Levin, H.M. (2002). Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. (2^nd Edition) California: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
25. Ministry of Education. (2020). Kenya Basic Education Statistical Booklet 2019/2020. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
26. Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: ACTS Press.
27. Ngeno, V.C., Simatwae, E.M.W. & Ayodo, T.M.O. (2012). Cost Effectiveness analysis of educating girls in day and boarding secondary schools in Kenya: A Case Study of Kericho District. Educational Research (ISSN: 2141 – 5161) vol. 3(5) pp. 480-494, May 2012.
28. Ngetich, S.K, (2020). A Comparison of Academic Performance of Learners in Day Secondary Schools and Those in Boarding Secondary School in Kenya. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume IV, Issue VIII, August 2020|ISSN 2454-6186
29. Ngetich, S.K., Wambua, B. K and Kosgei, Z. K (2014). Determination of Unit Cost among Secondary Schools In Kenya: A Case Of Nandi North District, Kenya. European Scientific Journal June 2014 Edition Vol.10, No.16 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) E – ISSN 1857- 7431
30. OECD. (2015). Value for Money in School Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
31. Orodho, A.J. (2003). Techniques of writing Research proposal and Reports in Education and Social Science. Nairobi, Kenya. By Reata Printers.
32. Psacharopolous, G. & Woodhall, M. (1985). An Introduction to Economics of Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018). Returns to Investment in Education: A Decennial Review of the Global Literature. Education Economics, 26(5), 445–458.
34. Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for development: An analysis of investment choices. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press/World Bank.
35. UNESCO. (2015). Education for All 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Paris: UNESCO.
36. UNESCO. (2017). Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/18: Accountability in education – Meeting our commitments. Paris: UNESCO.
37. Woodhall, M. (2004). Analysis in Educational Planning Cost Benefit Analysis in Education.       Paris: IIEP. UNESCO.
38. World Bank. (2018). World Development Report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.