- Hillary Muhalya examines proposed penalties for parents who fail to enrol children or ensure regular school attendance.
- He argues that accountability is necessary but warns against punishing families whose children miss school because of genuine hardship.
- Mahalya says compulsory education must place responsibilities on parents while requiring government to make access realistic and affordable.
Kenya’s education debate has entered a new and potentially consequential phase as the Basic Education Bill, 2026, sponsored by National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah, proposes tougher legal obligations for parents and guardians who fail to ensure that children are enrolled in school and attend regularly.
The proposed legislation seeks to strengthen the right to free and compulsory basic education, but its tough penalties are likely to ignite an equally important debate: Should parents who keep children out of school be punished, and where should the line be drawn between parental negligence and genuine hardship?
The Bill proposes that a parent or guardian who fails to present a child for admission at the beginning of the academic year could face a fine of up to Sh100,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both. It further proposes a fine of up to Sh100,000 or one year in prison for failure to ensure regular school attendance. Where a learner repeatedly misses school without reasonable explanation and the parent ignores written communication from school authorities, the penalty could rise to Sh200,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
The most severe provision targets deliberate exclusion of children from education for reasons such as employment, income-generating activities, parental conflicts or cultural practices. Those found guilty could face a fine of up to Sh5 million, imprisonment for up to five years, or both.
These are proposed provisions, not penalties already in force. The Bill is still part of the legislative process and could be amended as Parliament considers it. The National Assembly currently lists the Basic Education Bill, 2026, among Bills before the House.
The principle is difficult to dispute
At its heart, the proposal addresses an uncomfortable reality: a child cannot exercise the right to education if an adult deliberately prevents access to school.
Parents have responsibilities that accompany the right to have children. Education cannot be treated as optional whenever a household needs additional labour or income. A child should not be withdrawn from school to hawk goods, work in a family enterprise, herd livestock or perform other economic activities simply because an adult has decided that immediate income is more important than long-term education.
That is where firm enforcement becomes necessary.
But the danger is assuming that every absent learner represents a careless parent.
When absenteeism is a symptom of poverty
Kenya’s education system serves families living under vastly different circumstances. Some learners miss school because their parents cannot afford transport, uniforms or other essentials. Others face illness, disability, insecurity, long distances, family breakdown or other circumstances beyond the family’s immediate control.
A fine imposed on such a household may not solve the problem. It could deepen the hardship that caused the absenteeism in the first place.
That is why the proposed law must be implemented with judgment rather than automatic punishment.
Before a parent is prosecuted, the circumstances surrounding the learner’s absence should be established. Is the parent deliberately refusing to send the child to school? Is the child being used for labour? Has the family sought help but failed to receive it? Is there a disability or safeguarding concern? Is the learner facing a problem within the school environment?
These questions matter.
Government cannot escape its own responsibility
If parents are being placed under a stronger legal obligation to get children into classrooms, government must equally confront the barriers that keep children away.
The State has a responsibility to provide an education system capable of receiving, retaining and supporting learners. Adequate classrooms, teachers, learning materials, sanitation, school feeding and realistic financing all matter.
It would be contradictory to demand universal attendance while ignoring conditions that make attendance difficult.
The proposed Bill should therefore be understood as a shared accountability framework rather than simply a punishment mechanism.
Parents must take children to school. Schools must monitor attendance and intervene when learners begin disappearing from classrooms. Government must provide the resources and infrastructure necessary for meaningful access. Communities must protect children from exploitation.
Support first, punish where necessary
The strongest approach would be graduated enforcement.
A learner’s unexplained absence should first trigger investigation and engagement with the parent. Schools should communicate clearly with families and give them an opportunity to explain the circumstances. Where genuine hardship is established, the appropriate response should involve support and referral to available assistance.
Where a parent deliberately ignores repeated interventions, however, the law should have teeth.
The proposed Sh5 million maximum penalty for deliberately keeping children out of school for labour or other prohibited purposes sends a particularly strong message: a child’s education cannot become a source of exploitation.
But Parliament should also examine whether extremely high penalties will be enforceable and proportionate. The effectiveness of a law is not measured by the size of the fine written on paper. It is measured by whether the law is applied fairly, consistently and effectively.
The Bill deserves public scrutiny
The proposals should therefore trigger serious public participation.
Parents, teachers, school heads, learners, education officials, child-protection agencies and community representatives should interrogate the Bill before it becomes law. The central issue should not be whether parents should be punished. The deeper question is how Kenya can ensure that every child is enrolled, attends regularly and completes basic education without criminalising families whose circumstances require assistance rather than punishment.
The Bill also seeks to address other aspects of basic education, including restrictions on tuition fees in public schools, admission requirements, school governance, learner protection and penalties for various violations. Its broader objective is to strengthen the legal framework governing basic education. The proposed restrictions on tuition fees and other charges are among provisions reported from the Bill.
That makes the parliamentary debate bigger than the headline-grabbing fines.
Kenya needs a system where parents understand that taking children to school is a legal and moral responsibility, while government understands that compulsory education requires adequate public investment.
The ultimate test should not be how many parents are fined or jailed. It should be how many children are brought back into classrooms and given a genuine chance to build their future.
The message to parents should be firm: do not deliberately keep children out of school.
READ ALSO: Inside TSC online meeting: What teachers are being told about their retirement future
The message to government should be equally firm: if education is compulsory, make access realistic, affordable and meaningful.
And the message to Parliament should be clear: legislate with both accountability and compassion.
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
