The Government’s plan to introduce a single funding model for both Primary and Junior Schools is being presented as a bold administrative reform intended to simplify financial management, reduce duplication, and streamline operations within learning institutions. On the surface, the proposal sounds reasonable. Since Junior School is currently domiciled within primary schools, many policymakers believe the two sections should naturally operate under one financial framework. The argument appears practical: one institution, one administration, one funding structure.
Yet beneath the language of efficiency and harmonisation lies a growing fear among school leaders, teachers, and education stakeholders that the real crisis may not be the structure of the model itself, but the continued underfunding of institutions. Many schools across the country are already struggling to survive under delayed capitation, rising operational costs, increased enrolment, expanding infrastructure needs, and the growing financial demands of the Competency-Based Education (CBE) system. In such an environment, merging funding systems without significantly increasing financial allocation may simply spread financial pain more evenly instead of solving the actual problem.
The debate, therefore, should not merely focus on whether the State should combine funding for Primary and Junior School. The deeper and more uncomfortable question is whether schools are receiving enough money in the first place to sustain quality education under the expanding expectations of CBE. A beautifully arranged funding structure means very little when the amount inside the structure remains painfully insufficient.
Supporters of the proposed model argue that a unified system may eliminate the confusion that currently exists between Primary and Junior School operations. In many institutions, administrators have struggled to interpret financial guidelines governing the two sections. Procurement processes sometimes overlap, reporting channels become repetitive, and planning may appear fragmented. A single funding model may therefore ease budgeting and simplify accountability. Auditors and ministry officials may also find it easier to monitor one consolidated framework instead of several parallel systems operating within the same institution.
There is also the argument that the Competency-Based Education system itself encourages continuity rather than separation. Junior School is no longer viewed as a completely isolated academic stage but as part of a continuous learner development pathway. From this perspective, separate financial identities may appear outdated or unnecessarily rigid. Schools that already share classrooms, staffrooms, libraries, sanitation facilities, and administrative offices may naturally prefer a more integrated approach to financing.
RELATED:
Government proposes unified funding model for primary and junior secondary schools
However, the problem begins when financial integration is mistaken for educational equality. Junior School is not merely an upper extension of Primary School. It carries heavier academic, infrastructural, and operational demands. The curriculum expects learners to engage in practical subjects, technical learning, scientific experiments, digital literacy, creative arts, and project-based activities. These expectations require laboratories, ICT facilities, workshops, specialized learning materials, internet connectivity, and continuous teacher support. Such needs cannot be sustained through ordinary primary-level financing.
This is where anxiety among school heads becomes justified. Many institutions are already struggling to finance even the most basic operational needs. Delayed capitation has forced some schools into debt, while others rely heavily on goodwill, postponed payments, or informal contributions from parents just to remain functional. In certain institutions, administrators must constantly choose between repairing classrooms, purchasing learning materials, supporting co-curricular activities, maintaining sanitation, and settling utility bills. Under such financial pressure, the introduction of a single funding model may become less of a reform and more of a redistribution of scarcity.
The greatest fear is that Junior School may quietly become financially suffocated within the larger primary structure. Since Primary School sections often have larger enrolment numbers, there is a possibility that most resources will naturally flow toward areas with the highest population pressure. Junior School, despite its higher academic demands, may then receive inadequate attention simply because institutions are struggling to keep the larger system alive. Without ring-fenced allocations specifically targeting Junior School needs, practical learning may gradually deteriorate into theory-based teaching due to lack of equipment and materials.
The irony is painful. CBE was introduced to move education away from memorisation toward practical competence, creativity, innovation, and application of skills. Yet practical learning is expensive. Science experiments require equipment. ICT lessons require devices and connectivity. Technical subjects require tools and materials. Creative arts require supplies and specialised spaces. Agriculture requires demonstration areas and resources. If schools remain underfunded, teachers may be forced to teach practical subjects theoretically, defeating the very spirit of the curriculum itself.
There is also growing suspicion among stakeholders that “harmonisation” may eventually become a polite administrative term for reduced government expenditure. Across many sectors, whenever systems are merged under the language of efficiency, institutions often fear that budget cuts may follow quietly behind the reform. School leaders worry that the single funding model may eventually lower per-learner allocations under the justification that institutions are now operating as one unit. If that happens, schools may experience even deeper financial strain while being expected to deliver broader educational outcomes.
The burden on school administrators is likely to increase significantly. Headteachers and principals are already operating under enormous pressure from parents, teachers, Boards of Management, ministry officials, and local communities. Financial accountability has become more demanding than ever before. Introducing a combined funding system means administrators will be expected to balance competing needs within one financial pool while still meeting strict accountability standards. In schools where leadership structures are weak, secretive, or overly centralized, conflicts over resource allocation may intensify.
ALSO READ:
Teachers, too, may begin feeling the impact almost immediately. In many institutions, Junior School teachers already face shortages of teaching materials, limited classroom space, and overcrowded learning environments. Where resources become scarce, staff morale often declines. Teachers who are expected to implement learner-centred approaches without adequate support may eventually experience frustration, burnout, and professional exhaustion. Educational reforms cannot succeed through policy documents alone; they depend heavily on motivated teachers operating within supportive environments.
Parents may equally feel the hidden consequences of underfunding. Whenever schools experience financial pressure, the burden frequently shifts quietly toward families. Institutions begin requesting “support contributions,” development levies, examination fees, remedial support, activity funds, or infrastructure assistance. In economically strained communities, such demands may push vulnerable learners further away from equal educational opportunity. Education that is officially described as free may slowly become expensive through indirect institutional survival mechanisms.
Rural and marginalised schools stand to suffer the greatest damage if adequate funding is not guaranteed. Many institutions in remote regions are already struggling with inadequate infrastructure, teacher shortages, poor road networks, limited electricity access, and insufficient learning facilities. Some schools still lack laboratories, libraries, or proper classrooms. Expecting such institutions to implement Junior School effectively under a generalised funding model without targeted support may widen educational inequality across the country.
Urban schools with stronger infrastructure and community support may somehow adapt to the new model. However, rural schools operating under extreme resource limitations may fall further behind. The danger is that national reforms often appear uniform at the policy level while realities on the ground remain painfully unequal. A single funding formula may, therefore, unintentionally reward already stable institutions while weakening struggling schools even further.
The State must also understand that schools are no longer simple centres of classroom instruction. Modern institutions carry enormous responsibilities beyond academics. They must manage digital learning, learner safety, guidance and counselling, sanitation, nutrition programs, co-curricular activities, special needs support, environmental sustainability, infrastructure maintenance, and community expectations. Each of these responsibilities requires financial investment. Without adequate funding, institutions become overstretched and reactive instead of progressive and innovative.
The success of any funding reform will therefore depend less on administrative design and more on the political willingness to invest meaningfully in education. Systems alone do not transform schools. Resources do. A well-structured but poorly funded model may eventually collapse under its own weight because schools cannot manufacture quality education out of financial emptiness.
If the Government genuinely intends to make the single funding model successful, then several safeguards must accompany the reform. First, Junior School allocations should remain clearly protected within the broader framework to prevent financial absorption into primary operations. Second, capitation must be released consistently and on time. Delayed funding destabilizes institutional planning and creates unnecessary operational crises. Third, marginalized schools require targeted support rather than blanket formulas that ignore existing inequalities. Finally, continuous consultation with school leaders is necessary because they understand the realities on the ground better than distant policy documents often do.
Education reforms should inspire confidence, not anxiety. Unfortunately, many institutions today are approaching the proposed model with fear rather than optimism because their greatest challenge remains unresolved: underfunding. Schools are not rejecting accountability, integration, or reform. What they are questioning is whether the State can realistically expect institutions to deliver world-class educational outcomes while operating under severe financial limitations.
The danger of underfunding is not merely administrative. It is educational, social, and national. Poorly funded schools produce weakened learning environments, discouraged teachers, frustrated parents, and disadvantaged learners. Over time, the country risks widening inequality between learners who can access well-resourced institutions and those trapped within struggling systems.
The conversation surrounding the single funding model must therefore rise above technical financial language and confront the deeper reality facing Kenyan education today. Institutions do not simply need reorganised accounting systems. They need sufficient financial oxygen to survive, stabilise, and grow. Without adequate investment, even the most attractive funding model may ultimately become another ambitious reform trapped between policy brilliance and practical failure.
Otherwise, the country risks constructing yet another educational bridge without a river beneath it -impressive in appearance, celebrated in speeches, but painfully disconnected from the realities facing schools on the ground.
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
