For nearly four decades, Kenya’s education system was defined by the 8-4-4 structure. It shaped how schools were built, how teachers taught, how learners were assessed, and how society understood success. Its strengths and weaknesses became part of the national psyche. When the system was eventually declared outdated and replaced with the Competency-Based Education (CBE) framework, the announcement carried the weight of hope. At last, many believed, Kenya was breaking free from rote learning, exam obsession, and narrow definitions of intelligence. Yet several years into implementation, an uncomfortable but necessary question persists: are we genuinely reforming education, or are we simply rebranding it?
The argument for reform was compelling. The 8-4-4 system had become synonymous with high-stakes examinations, intense competition, and relentless pressure on learners, teachers, and parents alike. Intelligence was reduced mainly to academic performance, marginalising learners with talents in creative, technical, or vocational domains. Schools became exam factories, and success was measured almost exclusively by grades and university admission. Reform, therefore, was not optional; it was overdue.
CBE entered the scene promising a philosophical shift. Learning would focus on competencies rather than content coverage. Assessment would be continuous, formative, and supportive rather than punitive. Learners would discover their strengths early and follow flexible pathways aligned with their interests and abilities. Teachers would become facilitators of learning rather than mere transmitters of information. Parents and communities would be active partners. On paper, this vision marked a bold departure from the past.
However, reform is not achieved through policy documents alone. True reform reshapes classroom culture, teacher identity, assessment logic, and public trust. This is where the distinction between reform and rebranding becomes critical. Rebranding changes language; reform changes lived experience. In many schools today, despite the new vocabulary of competencies, strands, and rubrics, the everyday reality feels strikingly familiar.
One of the most glaring challenges lies in implementation readiness. Teachers, the backbone of any education reform, were introduced to CBE through hurried and often superficial training. Short workshops replaced profound professional reorientation. Many teachers were expected to interpret complex curriculum designs, develop new assessment tools, and manage extensive documentation with limited guidance and support. Unsurprisingly, teachers reverted to familiar pedagogies from the 8-4-4 system, simply adapting them to fit the new templates. When old practices are dressed in a new language, transformation becomes cosmetic.
Assessment, the supposed heart of CBE, further blurs the line between reform and rebranding. Continuous assessment was intended to reduce exam pressure and provide a holistic picture of learner growth. Instead, it has frequently resulted in assessment overload. Learners feel constantly evaluated, teachers are buried under paperwork and evidence collection, and parents struggle to interpret reports that feel abstract and technical. The anxiety once associated with national examinations has not disappeared; it has been redistributed across the school calendar. If stress levels remain unchanged, can the system honestly claim to have undergone reform?
Parental involvement under CBE has also exposed deep structural inequalities. The system assumes parents have time, literacy, financial resources, and digital access to support projects, research tasks, and online submissions. In reality, this assumption privileges urban, middle-class families while disadvantaging rural and low-income households. Home environments have quietly become extensions of the classroom, and parental capacity has turned into an unspoken assessment factor. A reformed system should reduce inequality, not inadvertently widen it.
Transitions within the new structure have generated further uncertainty. The movement from junior to senior school, and the introduction of multiple pathways, are conceptually sound but practically underdeveloped. Learners are expected to make career-aligned choices at relatively young ages, often without adequate guidance, infrastructure, or exposure. Many schools themselves are unsure of how pathways will operate in practice. Reform should clearly illuminate pathways; confusion at transition points suggests a system still finding its footing.
READ ALSO:
Teacher morale offers perhaps the clearest indicator of whether reform is genuine. Authentic reform energises teachers, giving them purpose, autonomy, and professional pride. Rebranding, by contrast, exhausts them. Many teachers report increased workload, diminished clarity, and a sense of being overwhelmed by ever-changing directives. The emotional and administrative burden has grown, even as public expectations rise. When teachers feel like reluctant implementers rather than empowered professionals, sustainability is at risk.
There is also the issue of policy pace. CBE has been rolled out rapidly, sometimes faster than schools, teachers, and parents can absorb. Reform requires time—time to pilot, reflect, correct, and refine. Rushing implementation creates the impression of momentum while masking unresolved flaws. When concerns are raised, they are sometimes dismissed as resistance to change rather than legitimate feedback from the field. Yet reform that silences implementers undermines itself.
None of this is to suggest that the 8-4-4 system should be nostalgically preserved or that CBE lacks merit. On the contrary, CBE’s philosophy aligns well with global trends and the needs of a rapidly changing world. Skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and adaptability are essential. Values-based education and learner-centred approaches are long overdue. The problem is not the vision; it is the execution.
The danger of mistaking rebranding for reform is profound. It breeds cynicism among teachers, confusion among parents, and fatigue among learners. It risks turning education into a perpetual experiment where children advance through an unfinished system while adults argue over policy language. Over time, reform fatigue sets in, making future improvements harder to introduce.
True reform would require a recalibration of priorities. It would involve sustained professional development for teachers, not one-off training. It would rationalise assessment demands to protect both teachers’ well-being and learners’ mental health. It would provide clear, equitable support structures for parents and communities. It would invest in counselling, career guidance, and infrastructure before forcing early specialisation. Above all, it would listen to teachers, learners, and school leaders on the ground.
So, are we reforming or rebranding? The honest answer is that Kenya stands uncomfortably between the two. The intention to reform is real, but the experience on the ground often feels like rebranding layered onto old realities. Until the philosophy of CBE is fully matched by preparation, resources, trust, and time, the promise of reform will remain only partially fulfilled.
Education reform should not be judged by how modern its language sounds, but by how humane, coherent, and empowering it feels in classrooms. When teachers teach with confidence, learners learn with joy, parents understand their role, and schools operate with clarity, reform will no longer need defending—it will speak for itself.
By Hillary Muhalya
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
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
>>> Click here to stay ahead with the latest national news.
