In every school, trust is the invisible glue that holds people together. It is what makes teachers cooperate, support the administration, and commit themselves to a shared purpose: improving learning outcomes for children. Unfortunately, trust can be damaged very quickly when staff members feel that important information is being hidden from them. One of the fastest ways mistrust grows in a school is when teachers do not know how much money has been received, what it is meant for, and how it is being spent.
In Kenya, schools receive funds through various government allocations and other sources. These may include capitation, tuition support, operations funds, infrastructure support, donor support, and contributions from parents through approved channels. Whenever such money comes in, it becomes a sensitive issue. If communication is weak, rumours begin to circulate. Teachers may start asking one another in whispers, “How much came this term?” Some may claim they heard the school received millions, while others insist the administration is misusing money. The most painful part is that suspicion thrives even when the administration is honest and committed. It is not always corruption that causes mistrust; sometimes it is simply silence.
A school that keeps teachers informed about money received is not just promoting transparency. It is also promoting unity, stability, and a professional culture where everyone feels respected. Teachers are not only employees; they are stakeholders. They work with learners daily, understand the real needs in classrooms, and often bear the burden of resource shortages. When they are left in the dark about school finances, they feel excluded from the decision-making process, and exclusion quickly becomes resentment.
The truth is simple: where there is no information, imagination takes over. And imagination, especially in a stressed environment, often produces the worst conclusions. When teachers do not know how much money came, they may assume the amount was huge. When they do not see improvement in resources or working conditions, they may conclude that the money is being diverted. When a staff member requests something small—like chalk, printing paper, a lab reagent, sports equipment, or classroom repairs—and the request is delayed, the teacher may interpret the delay as bad faith. “They have money, they just don’t want to support teaching,” becomes the narrative. With time, that narrative hardens into a culture of mistrust that is very difficult to reverse.
For this reason, school leaders must treat communication about funds as a routine professional responsibility. It should not be done only when there is pressure or accusations. It should be a standard practice every time money is received. The principal, deputy principal, bursar, and the Board of Management (BOM) must embrace transparency not as a defensive strategy but as a leadership culture. When teachers know what came, what it is meant for, and what priorities have been set, they become partners rather than critics.
ALSO READ:
State to merge JS schools to address teacher shortage in senior schools
One practical approach is to communicate immediately after funds are received. The moment the school account is credited, the administration should prepare a brief and clear summary. This summary should include the total amount received, the date it was received, the vote heads it is meant for, and the number of learners used to calculate the allocation. This information does not require complicated accounting language. It can be explained in plain terms that every teacher understands. A simple statement such as, “Term One capitation received on 12th February: Ksh. X for Y learners,” removes doubt before it begins. It also prevents exaggerated figures from spreading through staffrooms and WhatsApp groups.
Beyond immediate communication, the school should institutionalize financial updates through official channels. Staff meetings provide an excellent platform. Even if the agenda is full, allocating five to ten minutes to give a financial update can greatly improve morale. Teachers do not need to be overwhelmed with every small receipt or expenditure, but they deserve a general picture. A principal who stands confidently and explains what came, what it will cover, and what remains pending sends a strong message: “We are accountable, and we have nothing to hide.”
Noticeboards can also support transparency. Many teachers appreciate written communication because it reduces distortion. A printed summary pinned on the staff noticeboard, showing the amount received and planned priorities, ensures that everyone has access to the same facts. When information is public, gossip loses power. A noticeboard update does not mean exposing confidential documents. It simply means giving staff an official reference point so that nobody relies on rumours.
However, transparency is not complete if it stops at announcing the amount received. Teachers also need to understand the rules and limitations surrounding the funds. Many misunderstandings arise because staffs assume the school can spend money on anything. Yet government allocations often come with restrictions. Some vote heads are meant strictly for specific purposes, and using them outside those purposes may be illegal or may attract audit queries. When teachers request items that are outside the allowed expenditure, and the administration refuses without explanation, it looks like selfishness or sabotage. But when the administration explains that “this vote head cannot be used for that purpose,” teachers are more likely to understand. Informed teachers are less suspicious teachers.
It is also wise for the administration to share a simple expenditure plan. A school budget should not be treated as a secret document that only the principal and BOM understand. While some financial details may require confidentiality, the broad priorities should be known by staff. For example, the administration can explain that the first expenditures will cover utilities, examinations, printing, essential repairs, and teaching and learning materials. When teachers hear the priorities and understand the urgency of certain payments, they become more patient and cooperative. They stop interpreting every delay as deliberate neglect.
Furthermore, teachers gain trust when they see progress updates after spending. Communication should not end with planning. It should continue with reporting. A principal who announces, “We have already paid electricity and water bills, purchased printing paper for exams, repaired broken desks, and supported co-curricular activities, leaving a balance of…” builds credibility. Teachers begin to connect financial communication with visible improvement. Even small improvements, when explained properly, show that funds are being used responsibly.
ALSO READ:
Government to scrap birth certificate fees in landmark policy shift
Involving teachers in prioritization is another powerful strategy for reducing mistrust. Departmental heads, subject panel leaders, and senior teachers can be invited to submit priority needs at the beginning of each term. This does not mean the administration must fulfill every request, but it ensures that decisions are not made in isolation. When teachers participate in identifying priorities, they feel ownership of the process. Even if a department’s needs cannot be met immediately, teachers will appreciate that their input was considered. Participation reduces complaints because people rarely fight decisions they helped to make.
In the same spirit, transparency should include clear procurement procedures. Many suspicions in schools revolve around purchasing. Teachers may claim that goods are overpriced, suppliers are favoured, or items are bought without consultation. While procurement rules must be followed, the process should also be seen as fair. Where possible, schools can communicate that purchases are supported by quotations, approvals, and receipts. Teachers do not need to handle the receipts, but they should know that evidence exists and can be verified. A culture of “we buy properly and file documents” protects the administration and assures staff that money is not disappearing mysteriously.
Another important area is consistent messaging between the administration and the Board of Management. When BOM members say one figure and teachers hear a different figure, suspicion multiplies instantly. It creates the impression that someone is lying. School leaders should therefore ensure that financial communication is accurate, consistent, and based on official records. If there is any delay in funds or partial disbursement, that too should be communicated honestly. Teachers are more likely to accept hard truths than half-truths.
In today’s schools, communication is not only done through meetings and noticeboards. WhatsApp groups are common and very effective, but they must be used wisely. A staff WhatsApp group should not become a battleground for financial arguments. Instead, the administration can post short official updates such as, “Funds received today: Ksh. X. Details to be shared in the next staff briefing.” This prevents speculation while keeping communication professional. Sensitive discussions should still be handled through meetings, memos, or official staff briefings to avoid misunderstandings and emotional reactions.
Above all, school leaders must promote a culture of accountability without fear. Teachers should feel free to ask questions respectfully. When a teacher asks, “How much came?” it should not be treated as an insult or rebellion. It should be treated as a normal stakeholder question. Defensive leadership creates more suspicion, while open leadership creates calm. If teachers are punished or intimidated for asking about money, they will stop asking openly and start discussing secretly, which is far more dangerous. A transparent school is not one without questions; it is one where questions are answered with facts.
It is also important to recognize that transparency is not about pleasing everyone. Even when teachers know the amount received, there may still be disagreements on priorities. Some may want more textbooks, others want lab materials, others want sports equipment, and others want repairs. Such differences are normal. What matters is that the process is open, fair, and guided by the school’s core mission. When the administration communicates clearly, disagreements become professional discussions rather than accusations.
In conclusion, informing teachers about the money that comes to school is not a small matter. It is a major pillar of effective leadership. Silence breeds rumours, and rumours breed mistrust. But open communication builds confidence, unity, and cooperation. When teachers know what has been received, understand the restrictions, see a clear plan, and receive updates on expenditure, they become partners in school development. A school where trust is strong will always perform better, because teachers focus on teaching rather than fighting invisible battles over money. Transparency, therefore, is not just good governance; it is good education leadership.
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
