- A section of JSS teachers has questioned whether their union dues should continue supporting KNUT, given its opposition to JSS autonomy.
- KNUT has backed the comprehensive-school model, while KUPPET has advocated for greater institutional independence for JSS.
- The dispute has shifted focus from payroll remittance to the broader question of which union truly represents JSS teachers’ professional interests.
Kenya’s JSS debate has moved beyond the classroom and into the union shop, with a section of teachers questioning whether their membership and lawful dues should continue supporting a union whose position on JSS autonomy differs from theirs.
The message from some teachers supporting autonomy is blunt: “You can’t use our money and say no to JSS autonomy. Kindly let KUPPET have our money.”
The sentiment has injected a new dimension into the debate between the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), which have taken different positions on how Junior Secondary School should be organised within Kenya’s education system. But the emerging dispute is not an accusation against the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) over remittance of deductions. It is fundamentally about teacher choice, union representation and the organisation JSS teachers believe should carry their voice.
The Policy Divide Behind the Dues Question
At the centre of the disagreement is the future identity of JSS. KNUT has supported the comprehensive-school model, under which primary and JSS education remain integrated within one institutional framework, reflecting an argument for continuity, shared administration and an integrated basic-education structure rather than creating a separate institutional arrangement for JSS.
KUPPET has taken a different position, advocating greater autonomy for JSS, arguing that JSS has distinct professional and administrative characteristics and that teachers working in the middle-school section require a clearer institutional identity and stronger voice in decisions affecting them. The difference has put the two unions on opposite sides of one of the most consequential structural questions arising from Kenya’s Competency-Based Education reforms.
For some JSS teachers, the argument is no longer confined to policy. They believe their professional circumstances are sufficiently different to warrant greater institutional recognition, with questions around deployment, workload, leadership, career progression, responsibilities and professional identity all becoming part of the autonomy conversation. Teachers who support autonomy say they identify more closely with KUPPET’s position, and that is where the dues question enters the picture.
ALSO READ:
Inside TSC’s biggest promotion exercise: 78,732 teachers await results in KSh2 billion drive
A Question of Representation, Not Remittance
Some of these teachers are asking why their financial support should remain with an organisation whose position on a major issue affecting JSS differs from theirs. Their argument is essentially that representation should have a financial relationship with membership choice: if a teacher believes KUPPET is speaking for the professional structure they want, that teacher should have the opportunity, through the appropriate procedures, to choose KUPPET as their representative and have lawful deductions reflect that membership.
The argument should not, however, be interpreted as meaning that deductions can automatically be transferred from one union to another. Membership changes and payroll check-off arrangements remain subject to the applicable legal and administrative procedures. Nor should TSC be portrayed as the culprit in this debate, since the issue being raised by the teachers is not that TSC has failed to remit their deductions, but that some teachers want their union representation and financial support to correspond with their own membership choices. That distinction is critical, as it shifts the spotlight from payroll administration to the relationship between teachers and the unions seeking to represent them.
For KNUT, the comprehensive-school position can be viewed as an argument for an integrated basic-education system, with supporters contending that keeping primary and JSS together promotes institutional continuity and avoids further fragmentation of school administration during a period of major education reforms. For KUPPET, autonomy represents a different route, with supporters arguing that JSS requires a distinct institutional voice capable of focusing specifically on the needs of teachers working within that level.
What Comes Next for Both Unions
The two positions therefore reflect more than a union rivalry; they represent two different approaches to the organisation and representation of JSS. That leaves teachers with an important question of their own: which structure do they believe best addresses the realities of their work, and which union do they want to represent them in that debate?
The emerging dues controversy gives that question an additional financial dimension. A union’s strength depends on its members, and membership provides the foundation for collective representation. When teachers begin publicly questioning whether their dues should follow another organisation, the conversation becomes one about confidence as much as policy. The same principle applies to both unions: KNUT must explain how its comprehensive-school position responds to the specific concerns of JSS teachers, while KUPPET must explain how greater autonomy would translate into practical improvements in the professional lives of those teachers. Neither position should be judged merely by slogans; the real test is what each model means for teachers, learners, school administration and the long-term organisation of basic education.
ALSO READ: Two former public officers charged over forged academic certificates
That is why the JSS autonomy debate has become increasingly important. It is no longer simply a question of whether JSS should be autonomous. It is also a question of who speaks for JSS teachers, how that representation is chosen and whether teachers believe their union is reflecting their voice.
For the section of teachers demanding autonomy, the message remains unmistakable: “You can’t say no to our autonomy and still expect us to ignore where our membership and lawful dues should go.” For KNUT and KUPPET alike, the emerging lesson is that JSS teachers want more than declarations made in their name. They want to see their concerns reflected in the positions taken on their behalf. As Kenya continues to reshape its education system, the battle over JSS autonomy could consequently become a much larger conversation about professional identity, union representation, teacher choice and the future of basic education.
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
