- Hillary Muhalya argues that Kenya must look beyond universal transition and confront whether learners actually master essential competencies.
- He says teachers, parents and learners have responsibilities, but government bears the greatest responsibility for fixing systemic weaknesses.
- The solution, Muhalya proposes, is structured learning recovery that protects inclusion while ensuring progression is anchored in mastery.
Kenya has a difficult education question to answer, and it cannot be answered by blaming one person.
When a learner reaches a higher grade unable to read with understanding, write coherently or perform basic arithmetic, who is responsible?
Is it the learner who has failed to master the basics? Is it the teacher who has failed to close the gap? Is it the parent who has not provided enough support at home? Or is it government policy that has moved the learner forward without providing a sufficiently strong mechanism for learning recovery?
The uncomfortable answer is that all four have responsibilities—but they do not carry the same level of responsibility.
The learner must make an effort. Parents must support learning. Teachers must teach effectively and intervene when learners struggle. But government carries the greatest systemic responsibility because it creates the policies, finances public education, determines the curriculum framework and establishes the conditions in which everyone else is expected to perform.
That is why Kenya now needs to move beyond the familiar blame game and ask a much more useful question:
Where is the learning chain breaking, and what realistic policy can repair it?
The 100 per cent transition policy was founded on a noble principle: no child should be pushed out of education simply because of performance or difficult circumstances. Every learner deserves an opportunity to continue learning.
That principle should be protected.
But access and mastery are not the same thing.
A child can transition successfully on paper while still struggling academically. The learner moves from one classroom to another, but the learning gap moves with the learner.
A child may reach a higher grade unable to read a simple passage with confidence, understand written instructions, write effectively or perform basic arithmetic.
The class changes. The learning problem does not.
Beyond repetition versus automatic progression
This is where Kenya’s education debate becomes serious.
Should such a learner automatically repeat?
Or should the learner transition because the country has committed itself to universal progression?
Neither extreme provides a complete answer.
Repetition can give a learner additional time, but repetition is not automatically remediation. If a child spends another year receiving essentially the same teaching, materials and intervention, the system may simply be repeating the problem.
There can also be social and emotional consequences. A learner may become older than classmates, feel labelled, lose confidence or begin associating school with failure.
But automatic progression without intervention presents another danger.
Promotion without remediation can become abandonment disguised as inclusion.
The learner moves forward, but the learning deficit becomes tomorrow’s teacher’s problem.
The Grade 7 teacher inherits the literacy gap.
The next teacher inherits the numeracy gap.
Senior School inherits unresolved foundational weaknesses.
Universities, TVET institutions and eventually employers may inherit the accumulated consequences.
Kenya therefore needs to escape the false choice between repetition and automatic progression.
The more realistic approach is evidence-based progression with structured learning recovery.
A learner who has mastered the essential competencies should progress.
A learner with manageable gaps should progress with targeted support.
A learner with serious foundational weaknesses should receive intensive intervention and, where genuinely necessary, additional learning time.
If repetition becomes necessary, it should have a clear purpose, a defined intervention plan and measurable outcomes.
Otherwise, it becomes little more than repeating the calendar.
The basic scale for promotion should therefore not be age alone, attendance alone, completion of a grade or one examination score.
The stronger scale is demonstrated mastery of essential competencies.
This does not mean demanding 100 per cent mastery of every topic. Such an approach would create mass repetition and defeat the purpose of an inclusive education system.
Instead, Kenya should establish the foundational competencies that every learner needs to access the next level of education.
Reading. Comprehension. Writing. Numeracy. Communication. Reasoning. Problem-solving. Learning readiness.
These are the foundations on which the rest of the curriculum stands.
A learner who cannot read instructions will struggle in science.
A learner who cannot calculate will struggle in mathematics, business and technical subjects.
A learner who cannot comprehend a question may fail to demonstrate knowledge they actually possess.
Start intervention before the gaps become entrenched
This makes early intervention far more important than late correction.
And that brings ECDE into the centre of the conversation.
Kenya cannot wait until a learner reaches Junior School to discover that foundational skills were never properly developed.
The strongest learning-recovery programme is often the one that prevents the learning gap from becoming deep in the first place.
Quality Early Childhood Development Education gives children opportunities to develop language, early literacy, number sense, communication, social skills and learning habits.
But quality ECDE requires investment.
Capitation for ECDE learners should therefore be treated as an investment in the entire education pipeline, not as a peripheral expenditure.
The country cannot neglect the foundation and then expect the upper levels to compensate indefinitely.
Adequate and predictable ECDE financing, appropriate learning materials, suitable facilities and well-supported personnel can help prevent weaknesses from becoming entrenched.
The principle is simple:
Invest early or pay more later for remediation.
But early investment alone will not solve the problem.
The classroom itself has changed.
Kenyan teachers are dealing with learners who are not necessarily at the same academic level despite being in the same grade.
There is the fast learner who grasps concepts almost immediately.
There is the learner progressing at the expected pace.
There is the slow-paced learner who needs more practice.
There is the struggling learner who requires targeted support.
There is the learner carrying a foundational gap from previous grades.
There is the advanced learner who needs enrichment.
And there is the recovering learner who is gradually closing an earlier learning deficit.
These children cannot all be expected to learn at precisely the same speed.
Yet the teacher is often expected to meet all these needs within one classroom, one timetable and one curriculum.
This is where the argument about curriculum congestion becomes unavoidable.
The problem is not merely the number of subjects.
It is the relationship between content, instructional time, teacher capacity and learner diversity.
Every additional learning expectation competes with the same limited hours available for teaching and learning.
When teachers are under pressure to cover content quickly, foundational mastery can suffer.
The question should therefore shift from:
“How much content did we cover?”
to:
“What did the learner actually master?”
Teachers cannot solve systemic problems alone
This is where teachers deserve a more balanced treatment.
Teachers are not sitting in classrooms watching learners fail.
Many are fighting the learning crisis every day.
They group learners according to need.
They repeat difficult concepts.
They provide additional exercises.
They use peer learning.
They organise reading practice.
They revisit basic arithmetic.
They give advanced learners additional challenges while helping struggling learners catch up.
They often do this without adequate time, materials or support.
Teachers have the interests of learners at heart.
That must be acknowledged.
At the same time, professional accountability remains necessary. A teacher who does not prepare adequately, assess learners properly or intervene when difficulties are obvious cannot escape responsibility.
But accountability should be fair.
A teacher cannot be expected to solve systemic problems with personal sacrifice alone.
If Kenya wants teachers to deliver excellence, it must create conditions that make excellence possible.
That means proper remuneration.
It means professional development.
It means meaningful career progression.
It means adequate teaching materials.
It means manageable workloads.
It means appropriate teacher deployment.
It means listening to teachers when policies are designed.
Excellence should not simply be demanded from teachers; it should be enabled and rewarded.
Proper remuneration is therefore part of the education-quality equation.
Higher pay by itself cannot guarantee better learning.
But a country that wants a motivated, stable and professional teaching workforce cannot treat teacher welfare as an afterthought.
Teachers who are professionally respected, fairly remunerated and properly supported are better positioned to invest energy in instructional improvement and learner recovery.
Parents also remain critical.
Education does not end at the school gate.
Parents influence attendance, discipline, reading habits, homework, communication with teachers and attitudes towards learning.
But policy must also recognise that parents have different circumstances.
Not every parent can afford private tutoring, digital devices, extra textbooks or extensive academic supervision.
The school system must therefore provide a strong public foundation rather than assuming that the home can compensate for every weakness in the classroom.
Policies must survive contact with the classroom
This again points to the need for realistic government policy.
A policy should not only answer what Kenya wants to achieve.
It must answer whether the policy can actually be implemented.
Can it work in an overcrowded classroom?
Can a teacher realistically deliver it?
Does the school have the necessary materials?
Is the funding available?
Can the policy accommodate learners at different levels?
What happens when a child falls behind?
What happens in a rural school with limited resources?
What happens in an ECDE centre that lacks adequate support?
If these questions are unanswered, the policy may be ambitious—but it is not yet realistic.
Kenya needs policies that survive contact with the classroom.
This is particularly important for Competency-Based Education.
CBE should not simply be judged by new terminology, learning areas or assessment formats.
Its success should ultimately be visible in what learners can do.
Can they read?
Can they comprehend?
Can they write?
Can they calculate?
Can they communicate?
Can they reason?
Can they solve problems?
Can they apply knowledge?
Can they learn independently?
Those are the outcomes that matter.
Assessment should therefore become an early-warning system rather than a final verdict.
If a learner cannot read, the system should know early.
If a learner has weak numeracy, intervention should begin immediately.
If a learner has mastered the essential competencies, unnecessary barriers to progression should not be created.
Assessment without intervention is merely documentation.
Kenya needs an education model in which diagnosis, intervention and progression are connected.
A practical framework could classify learners according to their current learning needs:
READY TO PROGRESS: essential competencies have been mastered.
PROGRESS WITH SUPPORT: the learner has identifiable gaps but can continue while receiving structured intervention.
INTENSIVE RECOVERY: the learner has serious foundational gaps requiring concentrated intervention and, where necessary, additional learning time.
These should never become permanent labels.
They should be temporary pathways towards mastery.
A learner should be able to move from intensive recovery to supported progression and eventually to readiness.
The objective is not to classify children.
The objective is to close the gap.
This approach allows Kenya to protect 100 per cent transition without sacrificing standards.
Universal transition can remain the principle of inclusion while mastery becomes the principle of quality.
In other words:
Every child stays in education—but no child is allowed to disappear academically inside the system.
This requires money.
It requires policy.
It requires teachers.
It requires parents.
It requires school leadership.
It requires early intervention.
And it requires government to accept that education policies cannot be separated from the resources needed to implement them.
If government wants quality ECDE, fund it.
If government wants learning recovery, finance it.
If government wants differentiated instruction, give teachers the tools and time to provide it.
If government wants excellent teaching, support and remunerate teachers properly.
If government wants universal transition, provide the capacity to make progression meaningful.
If government wants competency-based learning, protect the time needed for mastery.
A policy without implementation capacity is an aspiration, not a solution.
From blame to accountability
So, who is to blame?
The learner has a responsibility to learn.
The parent has a responsibility to support.
The teacher has a responsibility to teach professionally.
The school has a responsibility to identify and respond to learning gaps.
But government has the greatest responsibility for creating a realistic, adequately financed system in which all these responsibilities can be fulfilled.
That is why the debate should move from blame to accountability.
Instead of asking, “Who failed this child?” Kenya should ask:
Where did the learning chain break?
Was the foundation weak?
Was the child absent?
Was the intervention late?
Was the class too large?
Was the curriculum too demanding?
Was the teacher adequately supported?
Was the parent engaged?
Was the school properly resourced?
Was the policy realistic?
Was the necessary funding available?
Those questions lead to solutions.
The ultimate danger is not repetition.
The ultimate danger is silent progression without mastery.
Kenya could eventually produce young people with years of schooling and impressive certificates who nevertheless struggle with basic functional competencies.
That would be a far greater national failure than having to give a learner additional time to master the basics.
The country does not simply need graduates.
It needs competent graduates.
It needs young people who can read with understanding, write clearly, calculate confidently, reason logically, communicate effectively, use technology, solve problems, innovate, collaborate and adapt.
That is the product of education that Kenya should be pursuing.
Therefore, the new progression equation should be:
ACCESS → FOUNDATIONAL MASTERY → READINESS → PROGRESSION → RECOVERY WHERE NECESSARY → HIGHER-LEVEL COMPETENCE.
Not:
GRADE COMPLETED → NEXT GRADE.
The government must make policies realistic.
Teachers must be empowered and held accountable.
Parents must participate.
Learners must take responsibility for effort.
Schools must intervene early.
ECDE must receive adequate support.
Teachers must be properly remunerated.
Curriculum demands must match available instructional time.
And assessment must trigger action rather than merely record failure.
Kenya should not abandon the ambition of 100 per cent transition.
It should upgrade the meaning of transition.
Let every child move forward.
But let the learning move with the child.
Let no learner be condemned to permanent repetition.
But let no learning gap be ignored simply because the child has advanced to another classroom.
Let teachers teach without being turned into scapegoats for structural problems.
Let parents support without being expected to replace the school.
And let government formulate policies that are ambitious enough to transform education but realistic enough to work in an actual Kenyan classroom.
Because the final test of Kenya’s education system will not be how many learners moved from one grade to another.
It will be much harder:
What could they actually do when they arrived—and what can they do when they finally leave the system?
That is where the real debate on 100 per cent transition should begin.
READ ALSO: Jukwaa la Wasomi invites trained mediators to CPM graduation
And that is where Kenya’s education policy must ultimately arrive:
From access to mastery. From promotion to progression. From blame to accountability. From policy promises to classroom reality.
By Hillary Muhalya
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
