Term Two in primary schools is not just another academic stretch in the school calendar—it is one of the busiest, most resource-demanding, and financially strained periods in the entire learning cycle. When placed alongside the realities of capitation funding, it becomes clear that the activities scheduled for this term consistently stretch school budgets to their limits, forcing administrators into constant prioritization, adjustment, and difficult trade-offs.
At the heart of the term are mid-term and end-of-term assessments. Under the Competency-Based Education (CBE) framework, assessment is no longer a one-time examination event but a continuous, practical-oriented process. Schools are required to print assessment tools, compile learner portfolios, and in many cases procure materials for performance-based tasks.
Teachers spend additional time designing, moderating, and documenting learner evidence. These are not once-off costs; they recur throughout the term, steadily accumulating pressure on already limited operational funds.
Closely tied to this; are the demands of curriculum implementation under CBE, which emphasizes learning by doing. Learners are expected to engage in projects, experiments, creative arts, environmental activities, and simple scientific investigations.
Each of these requires consumable materials such as art supplies, recycled items, and basic science equipment. Without adequate funding, schools are often forced to scale down activities or replace hands-on learning with theory-based instruction, weakening the very intent of the competency-based approach.
ALSO READ:
Molo KESSHA Chair applauds Govt for distribution of Grade 10 textbooks
At the same time, co-curricular activities peak in Term Two, making it a highly active season for music festivals, drama festivals, and sports competitions. These activities are central to holistic education, nurturing talent, teamwork, and confidence among learners.
However, participation comes with significant costs—transport, costumes, training materials, entry logistics, and sometimes accommodation. For many schools operating under tight capitation, these costs lead to difficult decisions: reduce participation, select fewer learners, or stretch already constrained budgets.
By mid-year, teachers also intensify remedial and learner support programmes. Learners who are struggling academically are identified and supported through extra lessons, targeted interventions, and additional learning materials. In some cases, schools extend learning time to accommodate remedial instruction. Yet these interventions require both time and financial input. In underfunded environments, such programmes are often limited in scope, leaving vulnerable learners at risk of falling further behind.
Beyond teaching and learning, infrastructure maintenance and minor repairs also become necessary during Term Two. The wear and tear from Term One, combined with weather exposure, often leads to damaged desks, leaking roofs, deteriorating sanitation facilities, and water system breakdowns. While these repairs are essential for safety and functionality, they directly compete with instructional and co-curricular needs for the same limited funds.
The administrative burden under CBE also intensifies during this period. Schools must maintain detailed records of learner progress, competency tracking, and assessment portfolios. This requires printing, filing, and sometimes digital documentation systems. Teachers and administrators spend significant time on compliance and reporting, which, while necessary for accountability, further increases operational costs.
ALSO READ:KUPPET raises alarm over teacher safety in Garissa as insecurity disrupts school reopening
Equally constant are health and sanitation requirements, which remain non-negotiable throughout the term. Provision of clean water, sanitation materials, and basic hygiene supplies is essential for learner wellbeing and attendance. Though often overlooked in budget discussions, these recurring costs quietly consume a significant portion of school funds.
All these demands converge into a single reality: Term Two presents a collision between expanding educational expectations and fixed financial inflows. Schools are required to fully implement CBE, sustain co-curricular excellence, maintain infrastructure, support learner welfare, and uphold administrative compliance—all within a capitation envelope that rarely adjusts to actual demand.
It is within this pressure that financial perception becomes a silent challenge for school leadership. Owing to the tight budgets and meagre resources, headteachers often find themselves in a vulnerable position where financial strain can easily be mistaken for financial mismanagement. When learners do not fully participate in co-curricular activities, when practical learning is visibly reduced, or when minor repairs remain pending, communities may wrongly assume that funds were available but not properly utilized.
This perception gap carries serious reputational risks. Even where books are balanced and expenditures properly accounted for, the visible reality of constrained implementation can create suspicion among parents and stakeholders. In some cases, the pressure of expectation outweighs the understanding of funding limitations, leading to unfair conclusions about misappropriation.
Yet the underlying reality remains structural rather than administrative. The capitation amounts—Ksh 95.25 for tuition and Ksh 93.08 per learner—are far below the actual cost of delivering a fully functional competency-based curriculum. A system that is activity-based, assessment-intensive, and co-curricular-driven cannot be sustainably implemented under static and meagre allocations.
It is therefore increasingly clear that adequate funding is not just a financial issue but a learning outcome issue. Well-resourced schools are able to provide richer learning experiences, consistent assessments, meaningful practical work, and stronger learner support systems—all of which translate into better understanding and improved performance. On the other hand, underfunded environments compress learning experiences, reduce exposure to practical skills, and ultimately weaken mastery of competencies.
In simple terms, when funding is adequate, learning becomes deeper, more consistent, and more effective. When funding is insufficient, even the best-designed curriculum is constrained in execution. This is why the success of CBE cannot be separated from the question of increased capitation. Educational ambition must be matched with financial reality if outcomes are to improve meaningfully.
Ultimately, Term Two exposes a fundamental tension in the education system: the widening gap between curriculum expectations and financial capacity. It is a term where educational ambition is tested against fiscal reality, and where the success of reform depends not only on policy design but on whether resources can finally match the demands placed on schools.
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
