Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Recent Reports 
 Support HRW
About HRW
Site Map

Human Rights Watch - Home Page


Legal Background

Most corporal punishment in Kenyan schools violates both Kenyan law and international standards. Kenyan law permits limited school corporal punishment, but only in certain highly restricted circumstances. Numerous international and regional human rights institutions have declared that some or all forms of school corporal punishment violate the human rights of children.1 The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, and the European Court of Human Rights have all spoken out against corporal punishment generally, viewing it to be a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Many nations around the world have either severely restricted corporal punishment or have banned it outright.

Kenyan Law

Regulations promulgated in 1972 under the Kenyan Education Act of 1968 govern the administration of corporal punishment in schools.2 The 1972 Education (School Discipline) Regulations state that corporal punishment may onlybe "inflicted in cases of continued or grave neglect of work, lying, bullying, gross insubordination, indecency, truancy or the like";3 and that it may only be imposed by or in the presence of the school's headteacher or principal.4 Further, it "may be inflicted only after a full inquiry, and not in the presence of other pupils;"5 records must be kept of all cases of corporal punishment;6 and only a cane "or smooth light switch" to the buttocks or a strap "not less than 1 ½ inches in breadth" to the palm of the hand may be used.7 The regulations stipulate further that punishments "must not mistreat or humiliate the student," should "relate to the offense" and should be adapted "to fit the individual" child, and that teachers should "confer with parents and students where necessary."8

Although the regulations permit the imposition of corporal punishment, there is some confusion in the Ministry of Education with regards to whether the ministry allows teachers to cane. Minister of Education Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, M.P. and Permanent Secretary of Education Wilfred Kimalat told Human Rights Watch that the ministry discourages use of the cane, although the regulations allow it.9 However, then-Director of Education Elias Njoka reportedly issued a statement in 1996 banning corporal punishment in schools,10 stating at the time that "the practice of corporal punishment must end."11 Senior Deputy Director for Education Elaine Makuru told us that the director of education's reported ban on caning "was not withdrawn, and neither did the law change. . . . We need to reexamine the Education Act to make it in harmony with modern times."12 Thus the regulations continue to allow the use of corporal punishment, despite the reported ban.

International Human Rights Law and Standards

Many international human rights bodies have taken a strong stand against corporal punishment in the schools on the grounds that it may rise to the level of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; it violates a child's right to be free from violence; it debases the dignity and physical integrity of children; it interferes in the development of children's physical and mental health; and it infringes upon a child's right to education.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the international human rights instrument that most authoritatively prohibits the practice of corporal punishment in schools. The convention has been ratified by almost every nation in the world including Kenya (the sole exceptions are the United States and Somalia).13 The Committeeon the Rights of the Child is responsible for making authoritative interpretations of the rights contained within the convention, and for reviewing the compliance of states parties. The committee has stated categorically that all forms of corporal punishment are incompatible with the protections given to children under the convention.

Multiple articles in the convention are relevant to the issue of corporal punishment.

C Article 19(1) requires states parties to take "all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

C Article 28(2) states that "[s]tate parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention."

C Article 37 states that children have a right to protection from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.14

C Article 28 enshrines children's right to receive a primary education,15 and article 29 sets forth to what purpose the education of the child shall be directed.16

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticized governments for permitting corporal punishment in schools (both public and private),17 and the committee and its members have stated repeatedly that corporalpunishment violates the fundamental principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In its official report of its seventh session in November 1994, the committee stated that "[i]n the framework of its mandate, the committee has paid particular attention to the child's right to physical integrity. In the same spirit, it has stressed that corporal punishment of children is incompatible with the Convention and has often proposed the revision of existing legislation, as well as the development of awareness and education campaigns, to prevent . . . the physical punishment of children" (italics added).18

Committee members have argued that the difficulties in drawing sharp lines between acceptable and unacceptable forms of corporal punishment require a total ban on the practice, since even mild forms of corporal punishment often in practice becomes severely abusive. In a concluding statement to the general discussion on "Children's Rights in the Family" in October 1994, committee member Thomas Hammarberg of Sweden noted that "[c]ertain States have tried to distinguish between the correction of children and excessive violence. In reality the dividing line between the two is artificial. It is very easy to pass from one stage to another."19 On another occasion, Hammarberg observed that "difficulties [arise] whenever a `reasonable' level of corporal punishment [is] permitted under a State's internal law. To draw an analogy, no one would argue that a `reasonable' level of wife-beating should be permitted. . . . The notion of a permissible level of corporal punishment [is] thus best avoided."20 Marta Santos Pais of Portugal, the committee's rapporteur, agreed that "it was in any case well-nigh impossible to assess objectively what constituted moderate corporal punishment."21 For these reasons, the committee and its members have determined that all forms of corporal punishment are incompatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The use of corporal punishment also intersects with other rights protected under the Convention. For example, corporal punishment is used to discipline children for speaking local languages in the classroom. Corporal punishment may also discourage children from attending classes at all. Thus, the use of corporal punishment interferes with the rights of the child to use his or her own language, to receive an education aimed at developing respect for his or her own cultural identity and language, and to receive a free primary education.22

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment places limits on forms of discipline and punishment, and these limitations apply to corporal punishment as much as they do to any other form of correction.23 The convention prohibits torture, which is defined as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,"24 and "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture. . . ."25

The Committee against Torture has indicated that corporal punishment is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention against Torture. For example, in the discussion of human rights practices in Tanzania in its 1993 Annual Report, the committee stated that "[t]he view was expressed [by individual committee members] that it was degrading treatment to apply corporal punishment in schools and other institutions. Children should be treated with respect for their integrity and teachers should be able to maintain authority without resorting to such primitive measures."26 The committee stated that one of its principal areas of concern was the "the continued use of corporal punishment, the application of which the Committee considers to be degrading and inhuman treatment."27 On other occasions, the Committee has criticized the use of judicial and administrative corporal punishment.28

The U.N. special rapporteur on torture has taken the position that judicial corporal punishment is inconsistent with the Convention against Torture and other international human rights norms. In his 1997 report to the Human Rights Commission, special rapporteur Nigel Rodley wrote:

[C]orporal punishment is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined, inter alia, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.29

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights

The principles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture that relate to corporal punishment are based on more general human rights principles articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Universal Declaration states that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,"30 and "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."31 The ICCPR (ratified by Kenya in 1976) also states that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."32 These are only a few of the relevant provisions and principles which help to inform a discussion of the legality of corporal punishment in the schools.

The Human Rights Committee (the U.N. body charged with monitoring states parties' compliance with the ICCPR) has held that corporal punishment is a form of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. In 1982, the committee explained that "the scope of the protection (of article 7) [prohibiting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] goes beyond torture as normally understood. . . . In the view of the Committee theprohibition must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement as an educational or disciplinary measure."33 In its 1992 General Comment on article 7, the committee reaffirmed its view that the prohibition "must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement ordered as punishment for a crime or as an educative or disciplinary measure. It is appropriate to emphasize in this regard that article 7 protects, in particular, children, pupils and patients in teaching and medical institutions."34

Other International Human Rights Instruments

Numerous other international human rights instruments contain provisions which either prohibit corporal punishment outright or which severely constrain the practice. These fall largely within the context the treatment of children within the context of correctional settings, including detention centers, prisons, and reform schools:

C The U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (known as the Beijing Rules) state categorically that "[j]uveniles shall not be subject to corporal punishment."35

C The U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty state that "[a]ll disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, including corporal punishment . . . ."36

C The U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (known as the Riyadh Guidelines) state that educational systems should avoid "harsh disciplinary measures, particularly corporal punishment"37 and that "[n]o child or young person should be subjected to harsh or degrading correction or punishment measures . . . in schools . . . ."38

International law and the international community recognize the need to protect children in correctional institutional settings from the harmful effects of corporal punishment.39 From a human rights perspective, it follows logically that children in regular schools should enjoy the same protection.

Regional Restraints on Corporal Punishment

African Human Rights Instruments

The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights contains a number of provisions which speak broadly to the issues raised by corporal punishment in schools. The charter prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degradingtreatment,40 affirms the dignity41 and integrity42 of the person, supports claims for personal security43 and physical and mental health,44 prohibits discrimination, and affirms equal protection of the laws.45 Most importantly, states parties affirm that "every individual shall have the right to education"46 and "[t]he State shall . . . ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions."47

The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, though it has not yet entered into force, provides similar protections, specially tailored for children. The charter prohibits harmful social and cultural practices affecting the welfare, dignity, normal growth, and development of the child. The article on education specifically mentions the need for disciplinary measures to accord with the inherent dignity of the child.48

Regional African bodies have not yet applied these principles specifically to cases regarding corporal punishment. Nonetheless, the protections in the African Charter track those in the international and other regional human rights instruments.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms also contains a provision relevant to the issue of corporal punishment. It states that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."49

The European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights have examined the issue of corporal punishment in great detail. The court and commission have determined, in particular cases, that judicial authorities, parents, or teachers have inflicted inappropriate amounts of violence against children as punishment. In the Tyrer Case,50 the court held that three strokes of the birch against the bare bottom of a fifteen-year-old from local police (executing a juvenile court sentence) was degrading treatment in violation of the European Convention.51 In the Case of A vs. the United Kingdom,52 the court held that a stepfather who beat his child with a garden cane with considerable force on more than one occasion had violated article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In App. No. 10592/83 v. United Kingdom, the commission stated that an actionable article 8 claim arose when school administrators struck one student on each palm and another student on the buttocks with a leather strap.53

The European Court has analyzed corporal punishment on a case-by-case basis. In Tyrer, the court stated that it must examine the particular facts of the case in order to determine whether the punishment violates the protectionsof the convention. Given this interpretive posture, the court has been reluctant to hold that the convention bans all forms of corporal punishment, per se.

Thus, in the Case of Costello-Roberts,54 the European Court held by five votes to four that three whacks of a slipper by a headmaster against a seven-year-old's bottom did not rise to the requisite level of severity to constitute a violation of human rights norms.55 The four dissenters, however, stated that "the official and formalised nature of the punishment meted out, without adequate consent of the mother, was degrading to the applicant and violated Article 3."56 Although it has hesitated to declare all forms of corporal punishment violations of the European Convention, the court has noted with approval the general trend toward the abolition of corporal punishment."57 Even in Costello-Roberts, the court took pains to note that it was not endorsing corporal punishment, stating explicitly that it did not "[wish] to be taken to approve in any way the retention of corporal punishment as part of the disciplinary regime of a school."58

The American Convention on Human Rights

Like most other international instruments, the American Convention on Human Rights does not mention school corporal punishment explicitly but does contain provisions regulating the administration of discipline or punishment. Article 5 states that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment" and that "[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected."59 Article 11 states that "[e]veryone has the right to have . . . his dignity respected."60

Other National Laws and Regulations

Many nations are now taking steps to prohibit or limit corporal punishment. Some of these restrictions take the form of statutes or national court decisions banning corporal punishment in schools or in the home. Others amount to a rescinding of common law immunity for parents or educators who administer corporal punishment, such that corporal punishment is now considered similar to other forms of assault and battery. At present, every European state61 (including the states of Eastern Europe), all but three industrialized nations and numerous other countriesaround the world prohibit corporal punishment in schools.62 Nine nations (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Croatia, and Latvia) now prohibit corporal punishment in all contexts, in school or elsewhere.63

Several African states-Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Namibia, and South Africa-prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe have also in recent years prohibited corporal punishment for juvenile offenders, a previously accepted practice.64 Bans on corporal punishment in Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe have all resulted from court decisions declaring the practice unconstitutional. A 1991 Namibian decision, In re Corporal Punishment By Organs of State, outlawed corporal punishment by all government actors, in both the criminal justice and public school contexts.65 The court based its decision on the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the Namibian Constitution.

In 1995, relying in part on the Namibian case, South Africa's Constitutional Court declared corporal punishment for juvenile offenders unconstitutional. In South Africa v. Williams, the Constitutional Court determined that corporal punishment constituted "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment, prohibited by Section 11(2) of the South African Constitution.66 The court went on to say, however, that "it is [the Court's] view that at this time, so close to the dawn of the 21st century, juvenile whipping is cruel, it is inhuman and it is degrading."

Kenyan law, in contrast, continues to authorize corporal punishment of juvenile offenders, by judicial authorities and within correctional institutions for children, as it does for students.67

Economic and Political Background

Over twenty years of government repression, mismanagement, and corruption have led to severe economic woes and a looming political crisis in Kenya. The situation is further compounded by the fact that Kenya has one of the highest population growth rates in the world, with over half its population under the age of fifteen, and has been badly affected by the onset of the AIDS epidemic. All these factors have created immense pressures and challenges for the Kenyan educational system.

Since 1992, when President Daniel arap Moi was forced to allow a multiparty system, the government has sought to undermine any reform that would end the absolute executive power wielded by the president and his ruling party.68 Education has remained a low priority. The president has responded to calls for reform with a combination of recalcitrance and brutality, all the while making promises to bring about change. Multiparty elections have been characterized by violence. Constant delays have characterized the constitutional reform process, and state-sponsored violence against ethnic groups perceived to support the opposition has resulted in the displacement of an estimated 400,000 people since 1992.69 The political opposition and the international community have been calling for reforms in the political system, in particular fair elections and a new constitution. At the same time, both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have suspended loan agreements as a means of pushing the government to fight corruption and to institute economic reform. These loan withdrawals, coupled with the political insecurity, have caused capital flight and a high rate of inflation. Under the current constitutional system, this is President Moi's final term in office. The next elections are expected by January 2003 and the ruling party is now almost wholly preoccupied with succession concerns. The political turmoil has diminished the prospects of any concerted government commitment to meaningful reform in the educational system in the foreseeable future.

Since the 1980s, Kenya has faced an almost continual economic decline.70 Kenya is classified by the World Bank as a severely-indebted, low-income country.71 This economic situation places immense pressures on the school system, as total government expenditures on education have declined.72 Teachers nationwide are organized into the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT). In recent years, the union has been in sharp conflict with the government over poor salaries and proposed retrenchment plans. Teacher salaries are among the lowest for any Kenyan civil servants, and the social prestige of teachers has also declined in recent years, according to many Human Rights Watch interviewees. In 1997, monthly salaries for teachers ranged from KSh1,880 to KSh19,115 (approximately U.S.$32-325]. Before the 1997 election, in order to garner their vote, President Moi promised to raise teacher salaries to KSh5,640 to KSh42,000 per month (approximately U.S.$96-714), but reneged on the promiseshortly after his reelection, offering as justification the deepening economic crisis. In July and October of 1998, teachers conducted nation-wide strikes to protest the government's failure to implement the promised salary increase.73 Following the strike, the government again promised to implement the salary increases, but in March of this year, KNUT threatened to strike again if salaries were not raised soon.74 At the time of writing, it was unclear when salary raises would occur.

Poor working conditions have a dramatic effect on the climate in Kenyan schools. Even for committed teachers, the ability to retain control over the classroom is diminished in the face of large classes with sometimes more than fifty students. Classrooms are often overcrowded, without even basic supplies. Low salaries further reduce teacher morale, and also lead some teachers to put more energy into supplemental income-producing schemes than into teaching. To make ends meet, many of the lowest-paid teachers are forced to find housing in slum areas;75 many other teachers run small businesses or subsistence farms on the side, or offer extra tutoring outside of regular school hours to students who can pay. A common complaint from parents and students, was that teachers often compel students to participate in such "voluntary" extra tutoring classes, administering corporal punishment to students who failed to pay for the "extra help."76 Similarly, some Human Rights Watch interviewees told of teachers who punished students by forcing them to work to maintain the teachers' personal gardens and farms, effectively using coerced children as unpaid farm or household labor.77 An even more common complaint concerned teacher absenteeism: according to many interviewees, teachers often abandon their classes for hours at a time, in order to pursue more lucrative business opportunities elsewhere. On Human Rights Watch visits to some schools, we found quite a few classrooms in which children had been left on their own, with no supervising teacher, for lengthy periods of time.

At the household level, poverty is endemic in Kenya. According to Government statistics, the incidence of poverty in Kenya is 47 percent in rural areas and 29 percent in urban areas.78 Extreme household poverty affects the educational system on many fronts: household incomes are insufficient to pay school fees, children face pressures to join the labor force, poverty leads to poor health, and pupils suffer from a generally poor quality of life. Many children in Kenya do not have enough to eat, may travel a long distance to school, or work inside or outside the home outside of school hours. These external factors affect their abilities to concentrate and the amount of time and energy they can devote to school.79

The economic crisis in Kenya is compounded by one of the highest population growth rates in the world and the onset of the AIDS epidemic. The number of persons living in Kenya with AIDS is expected to reach 1.7 million by the year 2000.80 According to Crispin Wilson, UNICEF's country representative to Kenya, "[i]t is undeniable that the entire education system of this country is under threat of HIV/AIDS."81 The problems include the health of pupils, teacher deaths, and orphaned children. Further, the high population growth has produced a high dependency ratio,as almost 50 percent of the population is less than fifteen years old. This demographic structure places high demands on social services such as primary education and depresses per capita gross domestic product.

Education represents both one of the most prominent challenges and one of the most hopeful prospects for future growth. Yet, although recognition of the importance of education plays a prominent role in the government's stated policy plan-Kenya's National Development Plan and its National Poverty Eradication Plan-the government has not committed the necessary political will nor allocated sufficient resources to create a national educational system with optimal working conditions for teachers and students alike.82 While resource constraints are a problem, the deficit of trained personnel, the lack of basic learning materials, low teacher morale and salaries, and overcrowded classrooms are symptomatic of the lack of a genuine commitment on the part of the government to make education a real priority.

The Kenyan Educational System

The Structure of the Kenyan School System

The Kenyan educational system is an "8+4+4 system," which consists of an eight-year primary course (Standards One through Eight) followed by a four-year secondary course (Forms One through Four) and a four-year university course. At the end of eight years of primary education, pupils sit for the Kenya Certificate for Primary Education exam. Those who successfully pass the exam and who can afford to pay school fees advance to secondary education.

Many Kenyans have little access to basic education, and a high dropout rate has also plagued the educational system in recent years.83 In the late 1980's the Kenyan education system had achieved a number of notable successes, particularly in primary school enrollment, which rose to 95 percent in 1989,84 and in the education of girls, whose enrollment increased from 34 percent of primary school students in 1963 to 49 percent by 1988.85 However, in the course of the economic downturn of the 1990s educational advances have undergone a series of setbacks.

Primary school enrollment relative to the school-age population has dropped substantially. Between 1989 to 1996, the primary school enrollment rate dropped from 95 percent to 77.5 percent.86 Enrollment is also highly variable by region; in 1995, the Central Province had an 89.7 percent primary school enrollment rate, while the North Eastern Province enrolled less than 20 percent.87 In addition, the school system suffers from a high attrition rate. Only 43 percent of pupils who entered Standard One in 1988 reached Standard Eight by 1995. The completion rate is lower for girls than for boys; the primary school completion rate for girls is only about 35 percent, compared to 55 percent for boys.88

Many Kenyan classrooms have high student to teacher ratios. Ministry of Education officials reported to Human Rights Watch that the target ratio for primary schools is thirty to one, and for secondary schools sixteen to one.89 During visits by Human Rights Watch to schools, we found classes with as many as seventy-five students to one teacher, with an average of approximately forty to fifty pupils per instructor. High student to teacher ratios can make it difficult for instructors to address the educational and personal needs of each pupil, and can make it challenging for teachers to maintain control of their classrooms. With such high ratios, students may not receive the attention and encouragement that they need to advance through the educational system.

Poverty is also a major cause of the low enrollment and high dropout rates. Children drop out to assist parents in earning a living or because they are unable to finance their educations. Although under the 8+4+4 system primary education is theoretically free and open to all (although not compulsory), in reality a large portion of the financial burden of education falls on parents and communities. The Kenyan government allocates 7 percent of its gross domestic product to education, a sum that is higher than most other sub-Saharan countries; however, these expenditures only cover 69 percent of the cost of primary education.90 The government pays for educational personnel (teachers' salaries), curriculum development, and the management of examinations. The remainder of the financial burden falls on parents and communities, in what is popularly called the "cost-sharing" plan.

Parents and communities must pay for uniforms, textbooks, building fees (repair, maintenance, and construction of school buildings), and activities fees. These costs place education beyond the means of many poor families, while many others struggle to keep their children in school. Children may face harassment for wearing torn and dirty uniforms, or children are inadequately prepared because they lack text books and perform poorly. They may be sent home from school and told to return with their parents and the overdue payment; some children simply do not return, fearing further humiliation in school. According to government statistics, 4.2 million primary schoolchildren lack school books and 400,000 secondary school pupils are unable to pay their school fees.91

In 1988, President Moi abolished the "building fees" that are traditionally imposed by local School Committees and Parents Associations.92 Similarly, in 1997, Moi proclaimed that he would abolish the "activity fees" that are levied by local District Education Boards for sports and the arts.93 Nonetheless, these financial obligations persist for most families, as government funding has not in fact been adequate to cover the costs of schools' physical plants, textbooks, or other equipment. In practice, many schools continue to charge mandatory fees, although since the official abolition of school fees by the government, many schools refer to the costs as "levies" or "assessments" rather than "fees." Needless to say, this change in name makes little difference to struggling families. According to one official of the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), "forced activity fees demanded by school headmasters [is] a major contributor to pupils going without education, especially in rural areas."94

Also, despite the official abolition of "school fees" on the primary education level, local communities are still expected to engage in "cost-sharing" to help keep up with the country's population growth. According to the Ministry of Education, this means that parents are expected to provide in-kind services by helping to "construct physical facilities while the Government supplements the community efforts by providing teachers, teaching/learning materialsand supervisory and advisory services."95 In addition to the typical day schools, the government also maintains a number of primary boarding schools which charge varying fees to students.96

Secondary education in Kenya is neither free nor universal, but it too has expanded greatly since independence. Primary school students in Standard Eight take the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education exam, and on the basis of their scores they may be admitted to Form One; currently, the secondary schools can accommodate less than half the students taking the examination.97 Despite the fact that secondary schools are not free, secondary schools' enrollment has grown tremendously since independence. Like primary school enrollment, however, secondary enrollment has dropped recently, from 30.7 percent in 1989 to 26.5 percent in 1997.98

There are four principal types of secondary schools. The best, and most competitive, schools are government funded or "maintained" schools, for which the government provides teachers and staff. Many of the old missionary schools have been transformed into maintained schools. "Assisted" schools, which account for the largest number of secondary schools, receive some government funding but are also partly funded through harambee, or "come together," in the sense of collective self-help.99 The government provides teachers but the local communities are responsible for administrative and other costs. Harambee schools receive no government assistance and are organized by local communities; the schools are generally poor and their students do not perform well. The government, however, is steadily converting harambee schools into assisted schools by providing them with teachers. Finally, "private" schools are typically established for profit, and operate largely outside the governmental school system; while government officials set their basic curriculum and inspect them periodically, they are free to hire teachers who have not gone through government training programs.100

Structure of the Ministry of Education

The Ministry of Education has the primary responsibility for and authority over all of Kenya's public primary and secondary schools. Civil servants in the ministry are appointed by the Public Service Commission, an executive body.101 The minister for education, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, M.P., is the country's highest education official. Immediately under the minister are several assistant ministers, and under them is a single permanent secretary for education, currently Wilfred Kimalat. The permanent secretary is the ministry's accounting officer, and is also responsible for formulating and implementing government education policies.102

Below these top-level officials the ministry is divided into two major sections: the Directorate of Education, which has responsibility for (among other things) educational policy, school assessment, and school governance; and the Department of Administration, which handles administrative and financial matters.103 The Directorate of Education is under the direct supervision of the director of education, Sammy Kyungu, who may issue directives for the school system.

Regional oversight lies with eight provincial education officers under the assistant director of education for field services, under the Directorate of Education. The provinces are further divided into thirty-nine districts, headed by senior education officers or district education officers. In turn, districts are subdivided into 195 educational divisions, mirroring the administrative structure of the province, and provinces are simultaneously organized into a total of 530 educational zones, consisting of approximately thirty schools each.104

Each district has a District Education Board, which includes in its membership the district education officer, the provincial education officer, representatives from the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), and other individuals selected under the authority of the minister of education; the District Education Board is chaired by a district commissioner of education.105 There are also seven cities that govern their own educational matters through appointed municipal or city council education committees.106

Headteachers of schools, like teachers, are appointed by the Teachers Service Commission, and are typically experienced teachers.107 School governance, however, is complex, involving officers from the Ministry of Education as well as local bodies. Each school has a School Committee which is comprised of selected parents, the headteacher, a representative of the District Education Board, and sponsors of school, with the exception of certain special schools that operate outside the regional hierarchy and are managed by their own Boards of Governors. President Moi however, has also ordered the creation of local Parents Associations, which play a significant role in school governance in some areas.

The Parents Associations include all parents in the area, as well as a number of school officials. Parents Associations organize the collection of funds for the school and approve proposals put to them by the School Committee. Parents Associations also elect the School Committee's officers. The School Committee acts as the executive committee of the Parents Association, administering the school and submitting proposals for the school's development. The School Committee also has oversight over discipline in the school.108

The Training of Teachers

The requirements for primary and secondary teachers have changed over the years. Although the government now officially requires that all public school teachers undergo teacher training, a large number of primary and secondary school teachers have historically not had formal training, and have varying educational backgrounds.109 According to the Ministry of Education, government policy is to "phase out all the untrained teachers from the system as quickly as possible."110 This policy has been achieving results. The numbers of trained primary school teachers have increased dramatically over the past decade; by 1996, only 7 percent of primary school teachers remained untrained.111 Untrained teachers comprised 15 percent of the secondary school teachers in 1996.112

Under the current 8+4+4 system, individuals wishing to be certified to teach primary school enroll in one of the government's primary teachers' training colleges where they undergo a two-year-long course of instruction and training. To enroll, aspiring teachers must have completed primary school themselves. Different levels of primaryteacher certification are awarded to those who have completed some amount of secondary education.113 The government has at times also conducted "in-service" training courses for formally untrained teachers, which is largely a correspondence course. In both the teaching colleges and the in-service program, teachers are expected to study all subjects of primary education.114

At present, the primary teachers' colleges provide little instruction to aspiring teachers in classroom management techniques. Candidates spend only between two to three periods- approximately four hours-during the entire two year program learning about disciplinary methods. During that time, instructors review with aspiring teachers the Ministry of Education's policy to minimize the use of corporal punishment.115 However, at least some of the training materials used by the teachers' colleges affirm excessive disciplinary techniques.116 Instructors also note that new teachers may be influenced by more seasoned teachers who favor the use of the cane and other physical punishments for students.117

Secondary teacher education is more specialized, consisting of a three-year diploma course in humanities, science, or technical and business education.118 Applicants must have completed secondary school, with a few additional requirements. Prospective teachers focus on two major teaching subjects, as well as general courses in education and development. Following the second year, student teaching begins, and full teacher certification is only given after a full term of teaching in the secondary schools.119

The Teachers Service Commission

Teachers provided by the government are recruited, assigned, paid, promoted, disciplined, and terminated by the Teachers Service Commission.120 The secretary of the commission is responsible for the management of the commission and the execution of its policies and decisions.121 On the ground, the provincial education officers and the district or municipal education officers are responsible for the discipline and interdiction of teachers.122

The Teachers Service Commission has a Code of Regulations for Teachers that sets forth rules that apply to every teacher in the Kenyan school system. According to this code, any teacher who fails to comply with any part of the regulations is liable for disciplinary action.123 Any agent of the commission can serve a notice of interdictionon a teacher. The commission then investigates and makes a determination in the case. The teacher has recourse to an appeals tribunal.124

Under the regulations, the commission has the power to suspend teachers for not being "of good moral character;" for being convicted of certain criminal offenses; for "infamous conduct in any professional respect;" for engaging in activities that are prejudicial to peace, good order, and good government; for physical or mental defects that affect suitability for teaching; and for "desertion of duty."125

The commission also provides legal defense for teachers in criminal and civil proceedings for acts or omissions arising out of their teaching duties. The commission defends teachers who it deems have acted in good faith, when the defense is "in the public interest." The commission defends these individuals, subject to approval by the Attorney General.126

1 According to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is "every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, Nov. 20, 1989, art. 1. For the purpose of this report the term children refers to persons under the age of eighteen.

2 The Education (School Discipline) Regulations, The Laws of Kenya, chapter 21.

3 Ibid., art. 11.

4 Ibid., art. 12(1).

5 Ibid., art. 12(2).

6 Ibid., art. 14.

7 Ibid., art. 13. See also George S. Eshiwani, Education in Kenya Since Independence (Nairobi : East African Educational Publishers, 1993), pp. 107-08. It should be noted that the 1972 regulations are closely modeled on earlier colonial period rules on school discipline, dating from 1932.

8 Kenya Ministry of Education, A Manual for Heads of Secondary Schools (Nairobi: Kenya Ministry of Education, 1987), pp. 31-32.

9 Human Rights Watch interview with Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka, M.P., Minister of Education, and Wilfred Kimalat, Permanent Secretary for Education, Nairobi, May 5, 1999.

10 Human Rights Watch interview with Elaine Makuru, senior deputy director of education, Nairobi, May, 15, 1999. See also "Girl Dies After School Caning," Daily Telegraph (London), September 24, 1996 ("A second Kenyan schoolgirl has died after caning, despite a ban on corporal punishment in schools imposed after a death in July."); "No Cane Do," Daily Sport (London), August 4, 1996 ("Caning has been banned in schools after a 16-year-old girl died after being given 15 strokes for laughing at a teacher."). Human Rights Watch requested a copy of the 1996 statement from the Ministry of Education, and was informed that a written record may not exist.

11 "No More Caning in Schools-Njoka," Daily Nation (Nairobi), August 29, 1996.

12 Human Rights Watch interview with Elaine Makuru, Senior Deputy Director of Education, Nairobi, May 15, 1999.

13 Kenya ratified the CRC on July 30, 1990. Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General,

14 "States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." CRC, art. 37. Marta Santos Pais, a former rapporteur for and member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, has stated that "`torture may cover a wide degree of situations,' even those which cause `unperceivable mental suffering' or those involving `a disciplinary measure which may be degrading or inhuman.'" Susan H. Bitensky, "Spare the Rod, Embrace Our Humanity: Toward a New Legal Regime Prohibiting Corporal Punishment of Children," University of Michigan Journal of Legal Reform, vol. 31 (Winter 1998): 353, 396-97. Santos Pais participated in the committee's formulation of its policy toward corporal punishment. While not authoritative, her views give insight into the committee's position in a manner similar to legislative history.

15 "States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: (a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all; . . . (e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates." CRC, art. 28(1).

16 Article 29 provides that education of the child shall be directed to: "(a) the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; (b) the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; (c) the development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; (d) the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin; (e) the development of respect for the natural environment." CRC, art. 29.

17 The committee's reporting guidelines require countries to explain how they are combating corporal punishment. The committee's Guidelines for Periodic Reports, adopted in October 1996, asks states "whether [their] legislation (criminal and/or family law) includes a prohibition of all forms of physical and mental violence, including corporal punishment, deliberate humiliation, injury, abuse, neglect or exploitation, inter alia within the family, in foster and other forms of care, and in public or private institutions, such as penal institutions and schools." U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/58, at 88 (italics added). The reporting requirements reaffirm the fact that the committee is concerned about corporal punishment and that the committee expects countries to minimize or abolish the practice.

18 U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report on the Seventh Session, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/34, Annex IV, at 63 (November 1994) (italics added).

19 CRC/C/SR.176, October 10, 1994, para. 46.

20 CRC/C/SR.205, para. 63.

21 Ibid., para. 72.

22 CRC, arts. 28-30.

23 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987.

24 "For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Ibid., art. 1(1).

25 Ibid., art. 16.

26 Report of the Committee against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 48th Sess., Supp. No. 40, para. 173, U.N. Doc. A/48/40 (1993).

27 Ibid., para. 185.

28 See, for example, Report of the Committee against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 50th Sess., Supp. No. 44, para. 169, U.N. Doc. A/50/44 (1995) ("The Committee expresses concern about the continued application of the death penalty [in Jordan], as well as of corporal punishment, which could in itself constitute a violation of the terms of the Convention."); Report of the Committee against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 52nd Sess., Supp. No. 44, para. 250 , U.N. Doc A/52/44 (1997) ("The Committee recommends the prompt abolition of corporal punishment [in Namibia] insofar as it is legally still possible under the Prisons Act of 1959 and the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977.")

29 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Nigel S. Rodley, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7 (submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/37 B).

30 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, (III), U.N. GAOR, 3rd Sess., pt. 1, U.N. Doc. A/810, art. 3 (1948).

31 Ibid., art. 5.

32 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature December 19, 1966, art. 7, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force March 23, 1967).

33 General Comments by the U.N. Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. A/37/40, annex V., paras. 1-3 (1982) (emphasis added).

34 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 20, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.2 p.31.

35 G.A. Res. 40/33, November 29, 1985, rule 17.3.

36 G.A. Res. 45/113, April 2, 1991, rule 67.

37 G.A. Res. 45/112, March 28, 1991, para. 21(h).

38 Ibid., para. 54.

39 It should be noted that, in contravention of international juvenile justice standards, Kenyan law (article 27(9) of the Penal Code, article 27 of the Children and Young Persons Act, article 33 of the Borstal Institutions Act, and rule 53 of the Borstal Institutions Rules) continues to authorize corporal punishment of juvenile offenders, by judicial authorities and within correctional institutions for children.

40 African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force October 21, 1986, art. 5.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., art. 4.

43 Ibid., art. 6.

44 Ibid., art. 16.

45 Ibid., arts. 2 and 3.

46 Ibid., art. 17.

47 Ibid., art. 18.

48 The charter was adopted by the Twenty-sixth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government at the Organization of African Unity, Addis Ababa, July 1990.

49 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, entered into force September 3, 1953, as amended by Protocols Nos. 3, 5, and 8 which entered into force on September 21, 1970, art. 3.

50 Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A.) (1978).

51 Ibid., para. 30.

52 A vs. United Kingdom, App. No. 25599/94, decided September 23, 1998.

53 App. No. 10592/83 v. United Kingdom, 9 Eur. H.R. Rep. 277 (1987) (Eur. Comm'n on H.R.).

54 Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, 1993 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. (Eur. Ct. of H.R.).

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid. Similarly, in the case of Campbell & Cosans v. United Kingdom, 1982 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. 3, 4 (Eur. Ct. of H.R.), the court held that the mere threat of a whipping does not rise to the level of torture or inhumane treatment. (Since the case involved the mere threat of a whipping rather than an actual whipping, the court did not rule on the issue of whether whipping would be degrading or humiliating treatment.)

57 In Tyrer, the court stated that "recent developments and commonly accepted standards in the penal policy of member states of the Council of Europe influence the Court's interpretation . . . ." The court looked to these developments and not to the general cultural conditions on the Isle of Man when deciding that the caning violated the European Convention. The court held that it was irrelevant that a majority of the population on the Isle supported corporal punishment or that corporal punishment may deter criminal activity. Tyrer, para. 31.

58 Costello-Roberts, para. 36.

59 American Convention on Human Rights, November 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 (entered into force July 18, 1978) (hereinafter American Convention), art. 5.

60 Ibid., art. 11.

61 Most European nations have dealt with the issue of corporal punishment in schools by enacting statutes banning the practice. An exception is Italy, which has dealt with the issue judicially; in the Cambria case, decided in 1996, the Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy's highest court) found that corporal punishment violated the Italian constitution and was also contrary to international law. Cambria, Cass., sez. VI, 18 marzo 1996 (Supreme Court of Cassation, 6th Penal Section, March 18, 1996), Foro It. 1996, 407 (Italy).

62 The three countries are the United States, Canada, and one state in Australia. National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools, Facts About Corporal Punishment,; Peter Newell, EPOCH-Worldwide, Corporal Punishment of Children: Breaching Children's Fundamental Rights to Human Dignity and Equality Under the Law, draft of paper for Commission on Human Rights, 1999. In Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporal punishment in the schools does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court stated, "The openness of the public school and its supervision by the community afford significant safeguards against the kinds of abuses from which the Eighth Amendment protects the prisoner. In virtually every community where corporal punishment is permitted in the schools, these safeguards are reinforced by the legal constraints of the common law. Public school teachers and administrators are privileged at common law to inflict only such corporal punishment as is reasonably necessary for the proper education and discipline of the child; any punishment going beyond the privilege may result in both civil and criminal liability." 430 U.S. at 671.

63 Peter Newell, Corporal Punishment of Children.

64 Ibid.

65 In re Corporal Punishment By Organs of State, 1991 (3) SA 76 (NmSC).

66 South Africa v. Williams, 1995 (7) BCLR 861 (CC). In making this determination, the court concluded that in order to find corporal punishment to be unconstitutional, it would be sufficient to determine that corporal punishment was either cruel, inhuman, or degrading-thus separating the individual words from the concept as a whole.

67 See note 39. For a detailed account on the use of corporal punishment within the Kenyan juvenile justice system, see Human Rights Watch, Juvenile Injustice: Police Abuse and Detention of Street Children in Kenya (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1996).

68 Human Rights Watch, World Report 1999 (New York: Human Rights Watch, December 1998), pp.46-49; Human Rights Watch, World Report 1998 (New York: Human Rights Watch, December 1997), pp. 40-45; Human Rights Watch/Africa, Failing the Internally Displaced: The UNDP Displaced Persons Program in Kenya (New York: Human Rights Watch, June 1997); Human Rights Watch/Africa, Divide and Rule: State Sponsored Ethnic Violence in Kenya (New York: Human Rights Watch, November 1993); Human Rights Watch/Africa, "Multipartyism Betrayed in Kenya: Continuing Rural Violence and Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Assembly," A Human Rights Watch Short Report, vol. 6, no, 5, July 1994; Human Rights Watch, Playing the "Communal Card:" Communal Violence and Human Rights (New York: Human Rights Watch, April 1995), pp. 97-112; and Human Rights Watch/Africa, "Old Habits Die Hard: Rights Abuses Follow Renewed Foreign Aid Commitments," A Human Rights Watch Short Report, vol. 7, no. 6, July 1995.

69 The main issues on the constitutional reform agenda involve the rights and privileges of the ruling party, the presidential term, and a new bill of rights. The most immediate source of gridlock is the dispute over the composition of the Constitutional Reform Commission. Earlier in the constitutional reform process, Moi had indicated that church and civic groups would have a role in the reforms. Since then, Moi has mandated that parliament alone should reform the constitution. Riots have ensued over this contentious issue, and the fate of the reform process remains uncertain.

70 Most commentators attribute the slump to a combination of political insecurity and mismanagement, drought, and the suspension of international aid pending political and economic reforms. Department of Development Co-ordination, National Poverty Eradication Plan 1999-2015 (Nairobi: Department of Development Co-ordination, February 1999), p. 23.

71 In 1992, the Kenyan government instituted a series of structural reforms which increased the gross domestic product growth rate from an all-time low of 0.2 percent in 1993 to 4.8 percent in 1996, increasing economic growth slightly for a short time. However, growth has declined again since 1996. These structural reforms include price decontrol, removal of import licensing and foreign exchange controls, investment reforms, public enterprise guidelines, and financial reform. Ibid., p. 4.

72 According to the Government's National Poverty Eradication Plan, "Government faces a difficult set of policy and planning choices both at the meso level of sectoral resource allocation and at the micro level of school programme performances. Total government expenditures continue to decline as the share of government expenditure in GDP continues to be reduced. So, there will be downward pressure on resources allocated to education." Ibid., p. 39.

73 Jeff Otieno and J. Sekoh-Ochieng, "KNUT Calls Off Teachers Strike," Daily Nation (Nairobi), October 21, 1998.

74 "KNUT in Renewed Strike Threat," Daily Nation (Nairobi), March 29, 1999.

75 "Teachers Demand 200 Percent Pay Increase," Daily Telegraph, July 16, 1998.

76 Human Rights Watch interview with Deborah D., age fifteen, at a rural primary school in Coast Province, May 11, 1999.

77 Human Rights Watch interview with David T., Jacob W., and Bernice G., all age fifteen, at an impoverished rural school in the Rift Valley Province, May 11, 1999. Human Rights Watch interview with Andrew K., age seventeen, Nyanza Province, May 10, 1999.

78 In Kenya, the poverty line is set at 980 Kenyan shillings per capita per month in rural areas and 1,490 Kenyan shillings per month in urban areas. This poverty line is well below the international standard. Department of Development Co-ordination, National Poverty Eradication Plan, p. 3.

79 Human Rights Watch interview with Deputy Headteacher Ben Ogatemo, Ng'ate Primary School, Central Province, May 6, 1999.

80 Department of Development Co-ordination, National Poverty Eradication Plan, p. 51.

81 "Aids Poses Threat to School Life in Kenya," Xinhua News Agency, December 8, 1998.

82 The government notes, "Since independence, the expansion of education facilities has been the single most important challenge on the human resources development front." Ministry for Planning and National Development, The Eighth National Development Plan 1997-2001, p. 133.

83 UNICEF, Situation Analysis of Children and Women in Kenya: 1998 (Nairobi, UNICEF: 1998), pp. 69-97; Department of Development Co-ordination, National Poverty Eradication Plan, pp. 39-45; National Development Plan, pp. 133-140.

84 Wainainah Kiganya, "Enrolment on a Downward Trend," Daily Nation (Nairobi), December 14, 1998.

85 Sorobea Nyachieo Bogonko, A History of Modern Education in Kenya (1992), pp. 112-13.

86 UNICEF, Situation Analysis, p. 74; Kiganya, "Enrolment on a Downward Trend."

87 Ibid.

88 Njonjo Kuhuria, "Unicef Suggests Way To Improve Children's Access to Schooling," Daily Nation (Nairobi), June 13, 1998.

89 Human Rights Watch interview with Permanent Secretary for Education Wilfred Kimalat, Nairobi, May 5, 1999.

90 "World Bank Praises Kenya's Education Budget," Xinhua News Agency, Apr. 11, 1999.

91 Eighth National Development Plan, p. 136.

92 Bogonko, A History of Modern Education in Kenya, p. 117.

93 Joe Ombuor and Paul Mutua, "Moi Abolishes Levy on Pupils," Daily Nation (Nairobi), January 23, 1997.

94 "Fees Ban Order Receives Praise," Daily Nation (Nairobi), January 25, 1997.

95 Kenya Ministry of Education, Education in Kenya: Information Handbook (Nairobi: Kenya Ministry of Education, 1987), p. 26.

96 Ibid., p. 29.

97 "Education Ministry Freezes School Registration," Daily Nation (Nairobi), January 12, 1999.

98 Kiganya, "Enrolment on a Downward Trend."

99 The word harambee literally means "come together" in Kiswahili. In Kenya, the word is also widely used to mean a fund-raising event where donations are solicited.

100 Kenya Ministry of Education, Education in Kenya, pp. 51-53.

101 Eshiwani, Education in Kenya Since Independence, p. 9.

102 Ibid., p. 108.

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid., p. 120-21.

105 Ibid., p. 101.

106 Ibid., p. 102.

107 Ibid., p. 124.

108 Ibid., pp. 99-102; Human Rights Watch interview with Deputy Headteacher James Kitonyi, Kangundo D.E.B. School, Machakos District, May 7, 1999.

109 Eshiwani, Education in Kenya Since Independence, pp. 65, 72.

110 Kenya Ministry of Education, Education in Kenya, p. 72.

111 Kiganya, "Enrolment on a Downward Trend."

112 Ibid.

113 Kenya Ministry of Education, Education in Kenya, p. 66.

114 Ibid., pp. 68, 70.

115 Human Rights Watch interview with Pancras Otwani, director of professional studies, Tambach Primary Teachers' College, Tambach, May 12, 1999; Human Rights Watch interview with Sophia M. Ngaywa, principal, High Ridge Teacher'' College, Nairobi, May 4, 1999.

116 For example, when instructors at Tambach Primary Teachers College have questions about disciplinary techniques, they consult the 1984 edition of the U.K. textbook Principles and Practice and Education by J.S. Farrant, first published in 1964. In Chapter 11, entitled "Organisational Skills," the textbook asks aspiring teachers to discuss the appropriateness of the following methods of punishments: formally caning a child, physical labor, informally smacking a child's fingers, publicly drawing attention to the child's misbehavior so that he feels ashamed, and making a child take up an uncomfortable position for a period of time. There are no instructions in the text that any of these forms of punishment are inappropriate.

117 Human Rights Watch interview with Pancras Otwani, May 12, 1999; Human Rights Watch interview with Sophia M. Ngaywa, May 4, 1999.

118 Kenya Ministry of Education, Education in Kenya, p. 72.

119 Ibid., pp. 73-74.

120 Teachers Service Commission, Code of Regulations for Teachers (Nairobi: Teachers Service Commission: 1986); Eshiwani, Education in Kenya Since Independence, p. 9.

121 Teachers Service Commission, Code of Regulations, Sec. 3(4)(a).

122 Ibid., Sec. 4(1)(b).

123 Ibid., Sec. 5(4).

124 Ibid., Sec. 70(6).

125 Ibid., Sec. 70(2)(a)-(f).

126 Ibid., Secs. 67 and 68.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page