- Pressure to protect mean scores can create incentives for schools to exclude learners who struggle academically.
- Public schools may inherit additional learning needs when weaker learners are transferred from highly competitive institutions.
- Early intervention, remedial support and fair progression offer a better measure of educational quality than rankings.
For many years, concerns have been raised regarding the treatment of academically underperforming learners in certain schools, particularly in contexts where intense competition for examination results creates pressure to maintain a favourable academic image. One of the most contentious practices associated with this pressure is the retention of learners in the same class or the transfer of those considered academically weak, sometimes with the underlying objective of protecting a school’s mean score and position in national academic rankings.
This practice raises fundamental questions of equity, professionalism and the core purpose of education. A learner who struggles academically should be regarded as a child in need of additional support, not as a threat to a school’s reputation. Education ought to focus on identifying individual abilities, addressing learning gaps and ensuring that every learner is given a fair and meaningful opportunity to progress.
In some instances, underperforming learners have reportedly been transferred from private or highly competitive institutions to public schools. While transfers may at times be legitimate and necessary for genuine educational, financial or family-related reasons, concern arises when such decisions are primarily motivated by a school’s desire to safeguard its examination performance. When transfers are driven by the pursuit of favourable academic statistics, they risk placing an unfair burden on public schools, which accommodate learners with diverse academic needs while continuing to serve as the foundation of inclusive education.
Public schools are mandated to accommodate learners from varied social, economic and academic backgrounds. They frequently receive learners who have experienced academic difficulties elsewhere, including those requiring remedial instruction, counselling, specialised support or additional time to grasp key concepts. Rather than being perceived as institutions for learners who could not meet the standards of elite schools, public schools should be recognised for their essential role in providing equitable and accessible education for all.
The transfer of weaker learners to public institutions can therefore create an artificial representation of academic excellence. A school may report strong examination results after weaker candidates have been removed from its cohort, while the receiving public school assumes responsibility for their continued education. Such outcomes do not necessarily reflect superior teaching quality; rather, they may indicate selective retention of learners within the examination cohort.
When repetition becomes problematic
A similar concern applies to forced repetition. Repeating a class can, in certain circumstances, be educationally appropriate when it is carefully assessed and supported by learners, parents and relevant education professionals. However, repetition becomes problematic when it is used as a convenient mechanism to protect examination results or delay the participation of learners perceived as likely to underperform.
A learner should not be required to repeat a class solely to prevent a school from recording lower examination outcomes. Such practices can negatively affect a learner’s confidence, motivation and self-perception. They may also contribute to unnecessary stigma, particularly when decisions are influenced more by institutional performance targets than by genuine educational considerations.
The education system should instead prioritise early and targeted interventions to address learning difficulties. Teachers require adequate time, resources and professional support to identify learners who are falling behind and to understand the underlying causes of their challenges. Some learners may require additional academic assistance, while others may be affected by home circumstances, financial constraints, language barriers, attendance issues, emotional well-being or learning disabilities.
Early intervention can yield significant improvements. Schools can implement structured remedial programmes, peer-assisted learning, differentiated instruction, individualised support, parental engagement and appropriate counselling services. Continuous assessment should be used not merely for classification, but as a tool to identify areas requiring targeted support and improvement.
The shift towards competency-based education further underscores the importance of recognising diverse learner abilities. Education should not be reduced to a single examination score or institutional ranking. Learners possess varied talents, interests and learning capacities. A comprehensive education system should therefore evaluate progress more holistically and ensure that schools are accountable for supporting the development of every learner.
When rankings drive decisions
There is also a need to critically examine the culture of school rankings. While academic competition can encourage improvement in teaching and learning outcomes, rankings may become counterproductive when institutions prioritise their position over learner welfare. In such environments, schools may become more focused on protecting their mean scores than on ensuring that struggling learners receive adequate support.
This creates a problematic incentive structure. If schools perceive weaker learners as a threat to their performance metrics, they may be inclined to discourage their participation in examinations, retain them in lower grades or encourage their transfer to other institutions. Such practices shift the focus away from educational development towards statistical management.
The implications are particularly significant for public schools. When large numbers of academically challenged learners are transferred into public institutions, these schools are required to accommodate additional learning needs without necessarily receiving proportional resources. Teachers may face larger and more diverse classrooms, limiting their ability to provide individualised attention. Schools may also need to expand remedial, counselling and differentiated instructional support for learners arriving with substantial learning gaps.
This is not an argument against private education or against parental choice in selecting appropriate schools. Nor is it a rejection of legitimate learner transfers. Rather, it is a call for greater transparency, accountability and fairness in the processes and motivations underlying learner movement between schools.
Parents should be empowered to make informed decisions about their children’s education without undue pressure to transfer learners based on perceived academic weakness. At the same time, schools should be evaluated not only on the performance of their highest-achieving learners, but also on the progress and development of those who initially struggle.
A truly effective school should demonstrate its capacity to identify learners in difficulty, implement timely interventions, monitor progress and support them in reaching their potential. Educational quality should be reflected in the overall growth of the learner population, not solely in the outcomes of top-performing candidates.
Support rather than exclusion
There is, therefore, a strong case for strengthening oversight of learner transfer and repetition practices. Education authorities, school administrators and parents must ensure that decisions regarding retention or transfer are guided by the best educational interests of the learner, rather than institutional reputation. Clear policy guidelines should discourage the manipulation of examination cohorts and safeguard learners from discriminatory practices based on academic performance.
Ultimately, the goal should be an education system in which no learner is treated as expendable due to poor academic performance. A learner who is struggling today may make significant progress when provided with appropriate teaching, a supportive environment, encouragement and timely intervention. Removing such a learner from a school may improve statistical outcomes, but it does not address the underlying educational needs.
Kenya’s education system should therefore continue to move decisively towards a culture of support rather than exclusion, intervention rather than repetition and inclusion rather than selective transfer. Schools should be assessed based on the quality of teaching, innovation, learner support systems and holistic development—not on their ability to exclude learners who may lower average performance.
The true measure of educational excellence is not the number of high-performing learners a school retains, but the extent to which it develops the potential of every learner entrusted to its care, including those who begin their educational journey at a disadvantage.
READ ALSO: Syllabus coverage is not enough: Are learners ready for the next grade?
A high national ranking achieved through the exclusion of weaker learners may appear impressive in statistical terms. However, a school that admits struggling learners, supports them effectively and enables meaningful academic progress represents a far more substantive and commendable form of educational success.
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.
Photo caption: Learners participate in a classroom lesson as schools are challenged to prioritise academic support and individual progress over examination rankings.
