A child can attend junior school inside a primary school compound. But should the two sections share the same leadership and management?
That question has emerged as a major fault line in Kenya’s proposed education reforms, with teachers’ unions divided over who should run junior schools and control their resources.
Nationwide public hearings on six education Bills concluded on October 2 after covering all 47 counties. Among the prominent submissions were calls for junior school to have greater administrative independence.
For parents, the debate has practical consequences: who handles complaints, who prioritises learning facilities, and who answers when the junior school section lacks what its learners need?
What does the Bill propose?
The Basic Education Bill, 2026 defines a comprehensive school as an institution where primary and junior school are housed within one compound.
Clause 38 provides for a Board of Management for public comprehensive schools. Clause 46 provides for a head appointed by the Teachers Service Commission, responsible for daily management and serving as the school’s accounting officer.
The proposed framework therefore recognises the combined institution as a unit of school governance.
However, these clauses do not spell out a compulsory “one principal, two deputies” arrangement. Clause 46 leaves implementation details to regulations prescribed by the Education Cabinet Secretary.
These provisions appear in the official Bill published by Parliament. They remain proposals subject to the legislative process.
Why some teachers want junior school autonomy
Supporters of independence argue that junior school has distinct teaching, staffing and infrastructure requirements that deserve dedicated leadership.
At a public hearing in Murang’a, Junior School representative Polycarp Mutugi proposed separate principals, deputies and senior administrators for the level.
Murang’a KUPPET Executive Secretary Thomas Kimani also supported separate Boards of Management, arguing that junior school laboratories, classrooms and learning materials require a distinct governance and financing framework.
Primary school headteachers opposed the proposal. KEPSHA’s Murang’a chairman, Paul Mwaura, defended the comprehensive model.
The underlying disagreement is about accountability. Those seeking autonomy want junior school needs to have their own decision-makers, rather than compete for attention within a larger institution.
Would independence mean moving learners?
Not necessarily.
During the West Pokot hearing, KUPPET proposed that junior schools remain within primary school compounds while operating autonomously.
Its county executive secretary, Alfred Kamuto, also argued that junior school leadership should have post-primary teaching qualifications.
KNUT took a different position. Its county executive secretary, Dorcus Lotimen, defended keeping the levels together, saying this supports a smooth transition for learners and allows teachers to share knowledge.
The distinction is important: sharing a location and sharing an administration are separate decisions.
A school compound could, in principle, accommodate two administrative structures. Equally, one institution could retain shared management while giving each section clearly defined responsibilities.
Parliament must decide what the law should require.
Why the board matters as much as the headteacher
The Bill assigns Boards of Management responsibilities that include advising on staffing needs, overseeing learner welfare and administering school resources.
Its proposed comprehensive-school board includes parent representatives, sponsor representatives, a person with a disability, a member with relevant professional qualifications, an alumni nominee and an education official. The institution’s head would serve as secretary.
That makes board composition important to both sections: it helps determine whose needs are represented when decisions are made.
For example, if a school needs additional primary classrooms and junior school practical-learning facilities, a shared board would have to weigh both priorities.
Separate boards could give each section a dedicated voice, but would still need clear arrangements for shared facilities and responsibilities. This is a governance question that the final law and implementation framework must resolve.
Changing management will not automatically fix funding
Stakeholders in Tharaka-Nithi raised junior school autonomy alongside demands for timely capitation, better learning facilities and improved teacher career progression.
Those demands show why the discussion cannot end with choosing a school leader.
A separate junior school administration would still need teachers, equipment and dependable funding. A shared administration would still need safeguards ensuring that each section receives the resources intended for it.
For parents, the useful test is whether either arrangement produces clearer responsibility and better learning conditions.
What happens next?
The Education Committee is expected to consider the submissions and prepare its report as the Bills proceed through Parliament. Completing public participation does not itself approve junior school autonomy or enact the proposed comprehensive-school framework.
The next stage should reveal which proposals lawmakers accept, amend or reject.
For families, the central question is straightforward: whichever management structure Parliament chooses, will it make someone clearly responsible for delivering what junior school learners need?
