The introduction of the Competency-Based Education (CBE) system marked a decisive shift in how education is conceived, delivered, and governed. At its heart lies a commitment to equity, learner-centred pedagogy, accountability, and relevance.
Among the most far-reaching structural changes under CBE has been the strengthening of central admissions, a policy direction that has seen many schools lose express admission authority. While often treated as a technical administrative reform, this shift fundamentally alters the relationship between schools, learners, parents, and the state.
Losing express admission authority means that a school is no longer permitted to independently admit learners, even when it has available capacity or when circumstances appear urgent and compelling. Admissions are instead handled through a central placement mechanism managed by education authorities. The school’s role is reduced to receiving learners assigned to it, rather than exercising professional judgement in enrolment decisions. This arrangement is intended to promote fairness and order, but its broader implications under CBE demand closer scrutiny.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of central admissions is equity. For decades, access to certain schools, particularly well-resourced or high-performing ones has been shaped by socio-economic privilege rather than merit or need. Express admission authority, though legitimate in principle, often became a gateway for favouritism, political interference, and outright corruption. Centralising admissions helps to dismantle these entrenched inequities by subjecting all applicants to standardized criteria and transparent procedures. In doing so, it protects learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and advances CBE’s foundational promise of inclusive education.
Closely linked to equity is transparency. Central admissions create verifiable records of enrolment that can be audited and cross-checked. This is especially critical under CBE, where learner progression is tracked continuously, and resources must align precisely with actual enrolment. Accurate data support effective planning, teacher deployment, and curriculum delivery. When schools lose express admission authority, the education system gains clearer visibility into who is enrolled, where they are learning, and what support they require.
ALSO READ:
Infotrak Survey: Majority of parents expect school fees to rise in 2026
Another merit of central admissions lies in system-wide planning and resource optimization. Education authorities are better positioned to distribute learners across schools in a balanced manner, preventing overcrowding in some institutions and underutilization in others. Over-enrolment has long undermined teaching quality, strained infrastructure, and compromised learner safety. Under CBE, which emphasizes individualized attention, formative assessment, and mastery of competencies, manageable class sizes are not a luxury but a necessity. Central admissions help align enrolment with capacity, improving the overall learning environment.
Central control can also shield school leaders from undue pressure. Principals are often subjected to intense demands from parents, politicians, religious leaders, and local elites seeking preferential admission for specific learners. The loss of express admission authority allows school heads to refer such requests to established policy and procedure, reducing personal risk and ethical dilemmas. In environments where allegations of malpractice can easily arise, this insulation can strengthen professional integrity and reduce conflict.
Despite these advantages, the drawbacks of withdrawing express admission authority are significant and deeply felt at the school and community level. One of the most immediate demerits is rigidity. Education systems operate within complex social realities, and learners’ circumstances rarely fit neatly into standardized frameworks. Family displacement, medical emergencies, insecurity, economic shocks, or sudden changes in guardianship often require swift and compassionate responses. Central admission systems, however well-intentioned, are frequently slow to process such cases. When schools lack discretion, learners can remain out of school for prolonged periods, undermining both their right to education and the learner-centred ethos of CBE.
The loss of institutional autonomy is another serious concern. Schools are not merely administrative units; they are dynamic communities with distinct cultures, strengths, and specializations. Principals and Boards of Management possess contextual knowledge that central authorities may lack. Removing express admission authority diminishes their capacity to shape their institutions and weakens the sense of ownership that underpins effective leadership. When school leaders are held accountable for outcomes without control over enrolment decisions, accountability itself becomes diluted.
Efficiency also suffers under excessive centralisation. In many contexts, central admission systems are overstretched, under-resourced, or constrained by limited digital infrastructure. Delays in placement disrupt learning continuity and frustrate parents and learners alike. A school with vacant classrooms may be forced to wait for approvals from distant offices while learners remain idle. Such inefficiencies contradict the flexibility and responsiveness that CBE seeks to promote, particularly in learner progression and transitions.
There is also a reputational dimension to consider. The withdrawal of express admission authority is often interpreted by the public as a punitive measure, suggesting wrongdoing or mismanagement even when the decision is preventive or systemic. This perception can damage a school’s standing in the community and erode trust. Over time, persistent central control risks reducing schools to passive administrative outposts rather than vibrant centres of learning and innovation.
Community engagement is another casualty of over-centralisation. Schools traditionally serve defined catchment areas and reflect local values and aspirations. When admission decisions are made far from the community, parents may feel alienated from institutions they once considered their own. Reduced parental involvement weakens one of the most important pillars of learner success under CBE, which relies heavily on collaboration between schools, families, and communities.
These competing realities raise a fundamental question: What is the best admission system under a competency-based framework? A fully centralised model maximises control, equity, and oversight, but sacrifices flexibility, responsiveness, and professional judgement. Conversely, unrestricted express admission authority empowers schools but risks abuse, inequality, and inconsistency. Neither extreme adequately serves the goals of CBE.
ALSO READ:
Treasury to release KSh5.3 billion monthly to facilitate bursaries ahead of school reopening
The most viable solution lies in a regulated hybrid system. Under such an arrangement, central admissions would remain the primary mechanism for learner placement, safeguarding equity, transparency, and national planning. At the same time, schools would retain limited, clearly defined discretionary authority to handle exceptional cases. This authority would be exercised within strict guidelines, supported by documentation, and subject to regular audits.
In this model, discretion becomes a privilege earned through compliance rather than a blanket entitlement. Schools that demonstrate integrity, accurate reporting, and adherence to capacity limits would be granted greater flexibility. Those who violate guidelines would face targeted restrictions rather than system-wide punishment. This approach creates incentives for good governance and continuous improvement while preserving the system’s ability to intervene where necessary.
Technology can further strengthen this balanced approach. Digital admission platforms that allow schools to flag exceptional cases for rapid review can reduce delays while maintaining oversight. Clear timelines, transparent appeal mechanisms, and effective communication with parents would enhance public confidence. Importantly, school leaders would remain active partners in admissions rather than passive recipients of decisions.
Such a system aligns closely with the philosophy of CBE itself. Competency-based education is built on trust in professional educators, accountability through evidence, and responsiveness to individual learner needs. Admissions policy should reflect these same principles. Equity should not come at the expense of humanity, and control should not undermine effectiveness.
Ultimately, the debate over express admission authority is not merely about power, but about purpose. Education reform must serve learners first, and that requires systems that are fair, flexible, and grounded in the realities of school life. Central admissions are essential, but they must be applied with wisdom and restraint. A balanced model that combines oversight with professional discretion offers the most sustainable path forward.
If CBE is to fulfil its promise, admissions policy must embody the same balance it seeks to cultivate in learning itself: structure with flexibility, standards with sensitivity, and accountability with trust.
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
