- Parliament has taken up the Basic Education Bill, 2026, which proposes entrenching the comprehensive-school model in law, while KUPPET has pushed for autonomous Junior Secondary Schools with separate leadership.
- KNUT has defended the integrated model, arguing against creating “two centres of power” within the same school compound, while KUPPET has called for JSS to have distinct governance and resource control.
- The Presidential Working Party’s finding that 93 per cent favoured hosting JSS in existing primary schools has been cited as evidence for the current model, though the debate has now shifted from where JSS is located to who should govern it.
Kenya’s Parliament is confronting a defining question over the future of Junior Secondary Schools as the Basic Education Bill, 2026, seeks to give legal force to the comprehensive-school model while KNUT and KUPPET push fundamentally different visions of how JSS should be governed.
The dispute has moved beyond classrooms and school compounds. It is now a legislative battle over the institutional identity, leadership, funding and accountability of Junior Secondary Schools. At the centre is the Basic Education Bill, 2026, which proposes to entrench the comprehensive-school arrangement in law. Under the model, primary and junior school education would operate within a unified institution and management structure. KUPPET wants Parliament to change that direction by removing references to comprehensive schools and establishing autonomous Junior Secondary Schools with their own leadership and administrative structures. KNUT, on the other hand, supports the integrated model and has argued against creating separate centres of power within the same school compound. That makes the Basic Education Bill much more than another education law. It is potentially the legislation that will determine who runs JSS, who controls its resources, how its leadership is structured and how the transition to Senior School is governed.
The Bill at the Heart of the Battle
The most important point in understanding the current controversy is that the Basic Education Bill is attempting to put the comprehensive-school concept into the country’s legal framework. The Bill defines a comprehensive school around the integration of primary and junior school education within a unified compound, and also provides for Boards of Management for public comprehensive schools, alongside other categories of public basic-education institutions. This means the argument over JSS is no longer simply about an administrative arrangement that government can alter through policy. If Parliament enacts the proposed framework, the structure of public schools would have a statutory foundation. That is why KUPPET is demanding changes to the Bill itself, having argued during public participation that references to comprehensive schools should be deleted and replaced with provisions establishing autonomous Junior Secondary Schools with distinct management structures. KNUT’s position takes the opposite route, supporting the comprehensive-school framework and questioning the wisdom of creating separate management structures where primary and JSS share the same physical facilities. The legislative choice therefore has practical consequences far beyond terminology.
If the comprehensive-school provisions remain, Kenya would be giving legal recognition to an institutional structure in which primary and JSS operate within one broader school arrangement. If Parliament accepts KUPPET’s proposed changes, JSS would instead emerge as a distinct category of public school with its own governance and leadership. That would affect school leadership, Boards of Management, allocation and control of resources, infrastructure planning, teacher supervision, institutional accountability, and potentially the way schools are funded and administered. The Basic Education Bill therefore places the KNUT-KUPPET disagreement directly before Parliament, no longer simply a disagreement between two teacher unions but a question about what Kenya’s basic-education system should look like in law.
KUPPET’s case is built around institutional identity. The union argues that JSS has distinctive curricular, professional and developmental requirements and should therefore have its own leadership, resources and administrative structure. During public participation, KUPPET officials have specifically called for autonomous JSS and separate management arrangements, arguing that sharing a compound does not necessarily mean that primary and junior secondary education must share the same institutional command. KNUT’s case begins from a different concern: if primary and JSS learners are already using the same compound and infrastructure, separating the institutions could create parallel management structures and additional demands on public resources. A KNUT representative told a public hearing that there should not be “two centres of power” within the same station. That is the central tension: KUPPET is asking for institutional separation, while KNUT is defending institutional integration.
ALSO READ:
866 P1 teachers posted to JSS, set to report to new stations on October 1
From Location to Power
The present dispute also has to be distinguished from the recommendations that shaped the original JSS transition. The Presidential Working Party on Education Reform received 2,563 submissions on the transition, with its report indicating that 93 per cent favoured hosting JSS in existing primary schools, five per cent favoured existing secondary schools and two per cent proposed new schools. Those findings provided important evidence for the decision to establish JSS within existing primary-school infrastructure, but the figures should not be stretched beyond what they actually measured. They were principally about where JSS should be hosted, not a direct referendum asking stakeholders whether JSS should have an independent Board of Management, separate funding or autonomous leadership. That distinction is now critical: the country has moved from the question “Where should JSS be located?” to the more difficult question “Who should run JSS once it is there?”
This is where the Basic Education Bill changes the character of the debate. A school can share a compound without necessarily sharing every administrative function. KUPPET’s proposal is essentially that physical integration should not automatically result in institutional dependence, wanting a structure where JSS has clearly defined authority and responsibility. KNUT’s position is that institutional integration can promote continuity, efficient use of infrastructure and coordinated management. The Bill therefore sits directly between these two competing philosophies, with its comprehensive-school provisions favouring one integrated institutional structure while KUPPET wants those provisions changed to create distinct junior schools. Parliament must now determine which framework should become law.
Behind the leadership argument is another issue: money. An integrated school can potentially share classrooms, land, laboratories, playing fields, offices and other facilities, which could reduce duplication, but integration alone does not solve shortages. JSS still requires appropriate laboratories, ICT facilities, learning materials and other resources for its curriculum, and parliamentary discussions have already raised concerns about infrastructure and resource shortages affecting JSS. Autonomous JSS, meanwhile, could provide clearer institutional responsibility for those resources, but autonomy would also require a credible financing and administrative framework. The crucial question is therefore not simply which structure sounds simpler, but whether government can finance whichever structure Parliament eventually puts into law.
The CBE Test and Parliament’s Real Task
The Basic Education Bill also has implications for the Teachers Service Commission and school leadership. If JSS remains part of a comprehensive school, the challenge will be ensuring that its distinct professional and curricular needs receive adequate attention within a unified leadership structure. If JSS becomes autonomous, the system would need to establish clearly how its heads, Boards of Management, teachers and resources would be organised. Either way, responsibility must be matched with authority, since a school leader cannot be held accountable for outcomes without sufficient authority over the resources and personnel necessary to deliver them, one of the strongest arguments behind the autonomy debate. At the same time, creating additional leadership structures without adequate financing could produce a different form of inefficiency.
The ultimate test of the Bill should therefore be whether its governance model supports the objectives of Competency-Based Education. JSS is a critical bridge between primary education and Senior School, and its effectiveness will depend on teachers, infrastructure, curriculum delivery, assessment, guidance and career preparation, not merely on whether the institution is called comprehensive or autonomous. The legislation should answer practical questions: who is accountable for JSS performance, who controls its resources, who supervises its teachers, who sits on its Board, who plans its infrastructure, who answers when laboratories, learning materials or staffing are inadequate, and how the system ensures learners receive the competencies needed for their next stage of education. These questions should be answered in law rather than left to administrative ambiguity.
ALSO READ: TTCs remain closed to fresh trainees in the September 2026 intake
The public participation process has exposed the competing positions, with KUPPET seeking autonomous junior schools and KNUT backing the comprehensive model. Parliament’s task is not merely to choose between two union positions; it must examine the evidence behind each model, including the cost of administration, infrastructure, teacher management, resource allocation, institutional accountability and learner outcomes. The 93 per cent finding from the Presidential Working Party remains important because it explains why JSS was initially anchored in existing primary-school infrastructure, but it should not be used to close today’s governance debate, since the current question is different: Kenya has already answered where JSS should largely be hosted, and the Basic Education Bill is now forcing the country to decide how JSS should be governed.
If Parliament retains the proposed model, the comprehensive school will move from policy practice into a stronger statutory framework. If Parliament accepts the call for autonomous JSS, it will fundamentally alter the institutional architecture proposed in the Bill. Either decision will have consequences for teachers, school leaders, the TSC, parents, learners and the public purse. The real measure of the final law, however, will be whether it produces schools in which authority is clear, resources are available, teachers are effectively supported and learners receive the competencies required for Senior School and beyond. Behind the KNUT-KUPPET battle is therefore a much bigger question: what kind of basic-education institution does Kenya want the law to create for the next generation?
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
