Kenya’s proposed Basic Education Bill, 2026 is not simply a new law on school fees. It is an attempt to replace the 2013 Basic Education Act with a legal framework designed for the Competency-Based Education era, covering school governance, registration, quality assurance, learner protection, financing, information management and the responsibilities of national and county governments.
That is precisely why the growing opposition to some of its provisions, particularly those dealing with school charges and ministerial powers, deserves more than a narrow response.
The Bill should be judged against the responsibilities it creates for schools and the resources available to fulfil them.
At the centre of the proposed framework is the constitutional principle that every child is entitled to free and compulsory basic education. The Bill seeks to give that principle a stronger statutory foundation while formally aligning basic education with the CBE structure from pre-primary through primary, junior school and senior school.
But free basic education and school financing cannot be treated as separate questions.
The Bill proposes stronger controls over financial practices in schools, including provisions targeting unauthorised charges. Reports on the proposed legislation indicate that public schools would not charge tuition, while persons responsible for illegal tuition or unauthorised charges could face substantial penalties, including a fine of up to Sh1 million, imprisonment of up to three years, or both.
It is precisely these provisions that require careful scrutiny.
Parents must be protected from illegal levies. Schools must account for every shilling they receive. Boards of Management must exercise proper oversight, and school administrators who deliberately violate financial rules should be held accountable.
But the Bill cannot stop at prohibition and punishment.
It must also answer the financing question created by its own provisions.
If schools are prohibited from imposing unauthorised charges, where does the money required for legitimate school operations come from? Who finances infrastructure maintenance, sanitation, learning materials, utilities, security and other essential requirements? What happens when government funding is inadequate or delayed?
Those are not peripheral questions. They go directly to whether the Bill can work in the schools it is intended to regulate.
Comprehensive schools and governance
The legislation is also proposing a significant restructuring of basic education governance. It provides for a clearer framework around the comprehensive school model, bringing primary and junior school education into a more integrated institutional arrangement. The proposed framework also seeks to clarify responsibilities among national government, counties, schools and their governing structures.
That makes the financing question even more important.
A comprehensive school model requires coordinated planning for infrastructure, staffing, learning resources and administration. If the law assigns schools and their managers greater responsibilities, the financing architecture must move with those responsibilities.
Otherwise, Kenya risks creating a situation in which the law makes the school responsible for outcomes while the resources required to achieve those outcomes remain uncertain.
The same concern applies to quality assurance.
The Bill seeks stronger registration, inspection and oversight of education institutions. It also expands the legal framework for learner protection and strengthens education information systems.
These are substantial responsibilities. They will require personnel, infrastructure, data systems, training, supervision and sustained financing.
A modern education law should therefore do more than prescribe standards. It should establish a credible mechanism for financing those standards.
What stakeholders are really saying
This is where the objections raised by education stakeholders during public participation become significant.
Their argument should not automatically be interpreted as opposition to accountability. The more important question is whether the Bill has struck the right balance between what it prohibits, what it requires and what government is prepared to finance.
A principal should be accountable for financial misconduct. A Board of Management should be accountable for governance. But neither should be expected to manufacture resources where public financing falls short.
Parliament should therefore examine every new obligation in the Bill alongside its corresponding financial responsibility.
If government wants schools to provide free basic education, the financing of that entitlement must be credible.
If government wants comprehensive schools, it must finance the infrastructure and administrative transition.
If government wants stronger quality assurance, it must provide the institutions and personnel required to inspect and support schools.
If government wants stricter financial accountability, it must provide a funding system that reduces the pressure that pushes schools towards additional charges in the first place.
That is the missing link that should dominate the debate.
A legal reset for Kenya’s education system
The Basic Education Bill is potentially a major legal reset for Kenya’s education system. It is designed to move the country away from a framework created in the 8-4-4 era and establish legislation more closely aligned with CBE, stronger learner protection, new governance arrangements and more systematic regulation.
But a modern legal framework cannot succeed through regulation alone.
The final law should clearly establish what government must provide, what schools may lawfully raise, what parents may legitimately be required to contribute, and what happens when government fails to meet its own financing obligations.
It should also distinguish between deliberate financial misconduct and the financial pressures created by inadequate institutional funding.
That distinction is critical because punishment alone will not solve underfunding.
The Bill’s strongest contribution could ultimately be its ability to create a clearer social contract around basic education: government provides the resources required by law; schools account for those resources; parents receive protection and transparency; and learners receive the education guaranteed by the Constitution.
That is the standard against which the legislation should be tested.
The question before Parliament is therefore not simply whether the Ministry should have more power to regulate school fees.
It is whether the Basic Education Bill, 2026 creates a workable relationship between rights, responsibilities, regulation and resources.
If it does not, Kenya could end up with a stronger regulatory framework without solving the financial pressures that continue to confront schools.
READ ALSO: Why TSC CSOs should be placed under MoE’s DQAS
A law that tells schools what they cannot collect must be equally clear about what government must provide.
That is where the real test of the Basic Education Bill begins.
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
