- Kenya’s Basic Education (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has proposed shrinking school Boards of Management from 17 members to nine, sparking debate over governance quality versus cost savings.
- The writer has urged the government to back its cost-saving claims with real data and to hold national and county-level consultations before implementing the change.
Kenya’s proposal to reduce school Boards of Management from 17 members to nine has opened a debate that goes far beyond the number of people sitting around a table. It touches on the cost of governance, accountability, teacher representation, learner participation, parental voice, and the role of alumni and alumnae, and ultimately raises the question of whether Kenya is building a more efficient education system or simply rearranging its administrative furniture.
The Basic Education (Amendment) Bill, 2025, sponsored by Mathare MP Hon. Anthony Oluoch, has put the proposed restructuring into the parliamentary conversation. The Bill should not be mistaken for an already operational directive requiring schools to immediately replace their existing boards; before any change becomes reality, Parliament must complete its legislative process, and the government must provide clear implementation guidelines. The argument for reform is understandable. The argument for rushed reform is not. The more useful question is not whether nine is smaller than 17, but whether nine people will actually govern a school better than 17, or whether Kenya will simply end up with a smaller board without fixing the problems that affect school governance today.
The Case for a Smaller Board Is Strong, But Not Automatically Conclusive
There is nothing inherently wrong with a 17-member board; its size can provide broad representation. But representation can also become unwieldy. Seventeen people may produce longer deliberations, overlapping responsibilities, complicated coordination and higher meeting-related costs, and a smaller board could plausibly make decisions faster with clearer individual accountability. That argument deserves consideration, but it would be intellectually lazy to conclude that nine is automatically better simply because nine is fewer than 17. Nine people can still misuse resources, still exclude the classroom voice, and still fail learners, just as 17 can. The issue, therefore, is not simply size, but composition, competence, accountability and representation.
That argument becomes more persuasive when set against how professionally governed organisations operate. A 2025 corporate-governance survey found an average board size of about 11 directors, with nine-member boards among the common configurations, and Safaricom, for instance, has an 11-director board. A school is not a corporation, and it would be a mistake to copy corporate governance mechanically into education, since schools carry teacher, learner, parental and child-welfare responsibilities that a commercial company does not.
ALSO READ:
CS Ogamba: New Tertiary Funding Model to focus on students’ careers over parents’ wealth
But if complex organisations can function with boards generally within the eight-to-12 range, there is a legitimate question over why every school should automatically require 17 people. The lesson is not that nine is a magic number, but that effective boards are usually deliberately composed, with each member serving a clearly defined purpose — precisely the standard Kenya should apply here.
The Cost Argument Needs Evidence, Not Assumptions
The financial case for a smaller board is the easiest to grasp on the surface, since every meeting can involve allowances, meals, refreshments, stationery and other administrative costs. But Kenya must be careful not to turn projections into facts. Using a hypothetical KSh1,000 sitting allowance per member per meeting, 17 members attending four meetings would cost KSh68,000, against KSh36,000 for nine members, a hypothetical difference of KSh32,000. Using an assumed KSh500 meal cost per person per meeting, 17 members over four meetings would cost KSh34,000 against KSh18,000 for nine, a difference of KSh16,000. Combined, the illustrative difference comes to KSh48,000 per school over four meetings. These figures, however, are projections only. They are not confirmed universal rates, and actual expenditure depends on applicable regulations, approved allowances, meeting frequency and catering arrangements. If the government wants to argue that a nine-member model will save billions nationally, it should show Kenyans the actual numbers: current spending, meeting frequency, real allowances and meal costs, the projected savings, and where those savings would be invested. Without that evidence, the financial argument remains an assumption rather than a demonstrated policy benefit — and if savings do materialise, they should not merely tidy up an accounting spreadsheet but flow into learning materials, laboratories, digital infrastructure, sanitation, classrooms and school feeding, since not every governance cost is waste, and the objective should be value for money rather than the lowest possible cost.
The Fight Over Teacher Representation
The most controversial aspect of the proposed restructuring is the reported removal of a direct teacher representative, and it deserves serious scrutiny. Teachers are not just another interest group; they are the professionals who implement the curriculum, assess learners, manage classrooms and monitor behaviour daily. If the board is going to make decisions about teaching and learning, Parliament must answer why Kenya would deliberately weaken the direct professional voice of the people doing the teaching. If the current structure has unnecessary duplication, it should be eliminated; if it has high costs, they should be controlled. But an essential professional perspective should not be eliminated merely because the board is being made smaller. A nine-member board can still be lean while ensuring teachers retain a formal and meaningful channel of influence — the reform should reduce redundancy, not expertise.
RELATED: Bill proposes alumni seat on school boards, cuts BOM size from 17 to nine
Learners and Parents Cannot Become an Afterthought
There is a related danger that, in the race for a smaller and supposedly more efficient board, learners could become the least represented people in a structure meant to serve them first. Learners experience the consequences of board decisions directly — they know whether facilities are adequate, whether welfare systems work, and where school rules create practical difficulties — and if direct learner representation is reduced, alternative structures with a genuine route to decision-makers must be established, since a learner forum without such a route would be little more than theatre. Parents deserve similar protection. Reducing the number of parent representatives is not necessarily wrong, but reducing their influence is; if fewer parents sit on the board, those who remain must carry a clear mandate to represent the wider parent community, so that a smaller number translates into more effective representation rather than weaker representation.
The Alumni Opportunity
The inclusion of alumni and alumnae could change the equation for the better. Former students carry institutional memory that current administrators cannot manufacture — they know the school’s history and culture, and have often faced the same challenges current learners face. More significantly, successful alumni and alumnae can bring professional networks, mentorship, scholarships, career guidance, internships and partnerships; for girls’ schools in particular, an alumna who has become a doctor, engineer, lawyer, entrepreneur, scientist, journalist or technology professional can show current learners what is possible beyond the school gate. The caution is that an alumnae representative should complement, not automatically replace, a teacher, parent or learner on the board, since each brings something distinct: professional classroom expertise, community accountability, lived experience, and institutional memory with professional networks, respectively. The strength of the board should come from combining these perspectives intelligently.
Why Consultation Cannot Be Rushed
A related question is whether the culture of board meetings itself needs scrutiny — not merely how many meetings a board can hold, but whether each one is necessary, since a board that meets four times but fails to resolve pressing school problems has wasted more than money; it has wasted time and public trust. This is part of why the reform must not be rushed. Kenya’s education system cannot afford another policy cycle in which reforms are announced first, stakeholders complain later, and implementation problems surface afterwards. Before moving from 17 to nine, the government should hold structured national and county-level consultative forums in which teachers, parents, learners, school heads, board members, teacher unions, education officials and alumni associations are all heard — not to seek applause, but to expose weaknesses before implementation. A policy designed in an office may look perfect on paper but encounter very different realities in a rural day school, a large urban institution, a girls’ boarding school or a school serving a marginalised community. Consultation is not a delay to reform; it is part of reform.
There is also a need for basic clarity: a Bill under parliamentary consideration is not automatically an operational instruction, and existing Boards of Management should not be dissolved prematurely based on rumours or informal communication. If the law does change, schools will need a clear transition framework spelling out when the new structure begins, what happens to existing members, how new members will be selected, and how ongoing responsibilities will be transferred. Policy certainty is itself a form of good governance.
KUPPET opposes TSC’s new social media guidelines for teachers
The Real Question Is Not 17 or 9
There is no universal magic number for board size — some organisations run with nine directors, others with 11, others with more or fewer — and what matters is whether the board contains the skills and perspectives necessary to do its job. The government should not defend nine simply because it is smaller than 17; it should demonstrate why nine is optimal for Kenyan schools, spelling out what skills will be represented, who will speak for teachers, parents and learners, how alumni and alumnae will contribute, who will provide financial expertise, and how conflicts of interest and unique school circumstances will be handled.
The hypothetical KSh48,000 figure used in this discussion should remain what it is: a projection based on assumed allowance and meal costs, not a confirmed national saving. The real financial case must come from official data, the real governance case must come from stakeholder consultation, and the real measure of success must come from the learner. If the reform reduces unnecessary expenditure, strengthens accountability, preserves essential representation, harnesses alumni and alumnae expertise, and improves learning conditions, it will have been worthwhile. But if Kenya merely removes eight chairs, silences teachers, weakens stakeholder participation and leaves the fundamental governance problems untouched, the country will have changed the arithmetic without changing the system. Kenya does not merely need smaller Boards of Management — it needs smarter ones, and before those boards are made smaller, the country should first make the conversation bigger.
By Hillary Muhalya
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
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
