The public backlash following the fee controversy at Alliance Girls High School has, in many quarters, settled on a familiar target: the principal. She has been condemned, criticised, and in some cases virtually “tried” in the court of public opinion. Yet this singular focus risks oversimplifying a far more complex governance and accountability problem. To isolate the principal as the primary culprit is not only analytically weak—it obscures the systemic dynamics that actually produce such outcomes.
It is important to begin with a basic institutional fact: principals do not operate as unilateral authorities in public secondary schools. Financial decisions—particularly those involving fee structures and additional levies—are governed through layered processes involving parents and Boards of Management (BOMs). The regulatory framework does not grant principals unchecked power to arbitrarily increase fees. Instead, such changes typically originate within parent bodies, often at the class level, before being formalised through BOM resolutions.
In many schools, especially high-performing ones, parents of KCSE candidates convene meetings to deliberate on strategies for improving academic outcomes. These discussions are rarely abstract. They translate into concrete proposals: additional revision programmes, extended tuition, acquisition of extra learning materials, and, crucially, teacher motivation schemes. Funding these initiatives requires resources beyond the standard fee cap, and this is where the idea of “extra levies” takes root.
Once parents reach consensus—often through majority decision-making—the resolutions are documented and forwarded for adoption by the BOM. The BOM, as the legally recognized governance organ, then deliberates and, in many cases, approves these proposals. At that point, the measures acquire institutional legitimacy. Structurally, the principal’s role is to implement what has already been collectively sanctioned.
This sequence complicates the narrative of individual blame. If parents initiate the proposals and the BOM approves them, then holding the principal solely responsible for enforcement is, at best, a partial reading of the situation. It is akin to faulting an administrator for executing a policy that has passed through established governance channels.
However, this does not absolve principals of responsibility. Leadership carries both administrative and ethical obligations. A principal is not merely a passive executor; they are expected to exercise professional judgment, ensure compliance with national regulations, and safeguard the integrity of the institution. Where decisions—however collectively arrived at—contravene policy or ethical standards, the principal has a duty to question, moderate, or even resist them. This is where the line between systemic pressure and individual accountability becomes nuanced.
The current discourse risks collapsing this nuance into a binary: either the principal is guilty or entirely blameless. In reality, the situation is more layered. The principal operates within a system that exerts significant pressure from multiple directions—parents demanding results, BOMs seeking institutional prestige, and national expectations anchored in KCSE performance under the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC). These pressures do not excuse poor decisions, but they do contextualise them.
The language of “public lynching” or “crucifixion,” while emotive, captures a legitimate concern: the tendency to personalise systemic failures. When a controversy erupts, it is far easier to identify and condemn an individual than to interrogate the structures that enabled the situation. In doing so, the system effectively protects itself. The removal or punishment of one principal creates an appearance of accountability, while the underlying drivers—parental pressure, incentive-driven levies, and BOM decision-making—remain intact.
This pattern is not unique to Alliance Girls. Across the country, similar dynamics play out in varying degrees. Parents push for enhanced performance; BOMs respond with incentive-laden strategies; principals are tasked with implementation. When outcomes are positive, the system celebrates collective success. When they are negative or controversial, responsibility narrows sharply onto the school head.
A more constructive approach would require redistributing accountability in line with actual decision-making processes. Parents must recognise their role not just as consumers of education but as co-governors whose decisions carry ethical and financial implications. Passing resolutions that impose additional financial burdens or tie incentives to high-stakes outcomes is not a neutral act; it shapes the behaviour of the entire institution.
Similarly, BOMs must exercise greater diligence. Approval of parent-driven proposals should not be automatic. Each decision must be scrutinised for compliance, sustainability, and ethical soundness. Governance is not merely about endorsing popular opinion; it is about safeguarding institutional integrity—even when that requires pushing back against majority sentiment.
For principals, the challenge is perhaps the most demanding. They must navigate these competing pressures while maintaining professional standards enforced by bodies such as the Teachers Service Commission (TSC). This calls for a blend of administrative competence and moral courage—the willingness to question decisions, insist on transparency, and, where necessary, decline to implement measures that cross legal or ethical boundaries.
The Alliance Girls controversy should therefore be understood not as the failure of a single individual, but as a stress test of the governance ecosystem in Kenyan secondary schools. It reveals how easily collective decision-making can produce outcomes that, once exposed, appear indefensible. It also highlights the dangers of retroactively assigning blame without examining the processes that led to those decisions.
READ ALSO: CS Ogamba calls for disciplinary action against Alliance Girls’ principal, dissolves board over illegal fee hike
If there is a lesson to be drawn, it is this: accountability must be systemic, not selective. To focus exclusively on the principal is to treat a symptom while ignoring the disease. Genuine reform will require all stakeholders—parents, BOMs, school leaders and regulators—to confront their roles in creating and sustaining the conditions under which such controversies arise. Only then can the conversation move beyond scapegoating toward meaningful, lasting change.
By Ashford Kimani
Ashford teaches English and Literature in Gatundu North Sub-county and serves as Dean of Studies.
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
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
>>> Click here to stay ahead with the latest national news.
