This article reviews the evolution of education policies in the East African region in a historical context. The focus is on the formulation of policies for access to primary and secondary education in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania since their independence in the 1960s. The three countries have common characteristics and historical backgrounds. For example, few of their population had access to education at all levels in the past, and hence, each faced similar educational and literacy challenges at the time of their political independence in the 1960s. All three have over time been characterized by Consortium for Research on Education Access, Transition and Equity (CREATE) zones of exclusion (i.e., those with no access, those who are excluded after initial entry, those at risk of dropout, and those excluded from secondary education). They have similarly announced and implemented new policies for Free Primary Education (FPE) following the international and internal pressure leading to the reintroduction of multiparty politics in the late 1990s. However, the three countries have had different experiences with the implementation of both Universal Primary Education (UPE) in the 1960s and FPE in the 1990s and have differed in the philosophies underpinning their education expansion more generally. This article is organized as follows: First, the authors discuss policies and action taken by governments of the three countries in the immediate postindependence era in relation to expanding access to those who had been excluded by the colonial education policies. Second, they present the formulation of those policies again in relation to how and whom they benefited. Third, they discuss implementation strategies and processes of those policies. Fourth, they discuss their institutionalization, replicability, and financial sustainability. Fifth, they outline the implications of these policies for the poorest groups. Sixth, they provide an overview of recent policies on access to secondary education and ask whom they have benefited and how the excluded groups can be reached. The conclusion follows. (Contains 2 figures and 2 tables.)