A growing sense of unease is sweeping through Kenya’s education sector as school heads grapple with what many describe as an increasingly unsustainable culture of levies, contributions and financial obligations being imposed on schools.
While principals and headteachers remain committed to implementing government policies, supporting educational reforms and ensuring that learners receive quality education, there is a mounting feeling that schools are being asked to shoulder responsibilities that should not always rest on their already strained budgets.
The concern is not centred on one particular programme, training or activity. Rather, it stems from a pattern that many school leaders say has become all too familiar. Every term seems to bring a new directive. Every circular appears to introduce another financial requirement.
Every training programme demands facilitation. Every workshop requires contributions. Every activity, regardless of its objective, seems to arrive with an expectation that schools will find the money to support it.
For administrators working at the grassroots level, the cumulative effect of these demands is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
The latest concerns have emerged from reports that Junior Schools are being required to contribute between Ksh 8,500 and Ksh 14,000 to facilitate stakeholder training programmes. In some cases, schools are expected to provide Ksh 5,500 to cater for meals for four participants attending the training.
ALSO READ:
MoE moves to streamline co-curricular activities, bans extra levies on parents
While the objective of the training may be noble and necessary, many school heads argue that the issue is not the training itself but the continued expectation that schools must finance almost every initiative that comes their way.
The timing of these demands has only amplified frustrations. Schools across the country continue to struggle with delayed capitation disbursements. Principals are battling unpaid supplier bills. Essential learning materials must still be procured. Infrastructure maintenance cannot be postponed indefinitely.
Co-curricular programmes require funding. Utility bills continue to accumulate. Yet despite these realities, new financial obligations continue to emerge with remarkable consistency.
For many school heads, the situation has created a troubling contradiction. On one hand, they are repeatedly informed that government resources are constrained and that schools must exercise prudence in expenditure.
On the other hand, they are expected to produce funds at short notice whenever new programmes require implementation. The question many are asking is straightforward: if schools are struggling to receive their full capitation allocations, where exactly are they expected to obtain additional funds for every new levy that is introduced?
The burden becomes even heavier when viewed in the broader context of educational reforms. Kenya’s education system is undergoing one of the most significant transformations in its history through the implementation of Competency-Based Education.
This transition has required extensive investment in training, infrastructure, learning resources and capacity building. School leaders have largely embraced these reforms despite the challenges involved. They understand that meaningful change requires commitment, sacrifice and adaptation.
However, there is growing concern that the financial burden associated with reform is increasingly being transferred to institutions that are themselves operating under severe resource constraints.
Many principals feel that schools have become the easiest source of funding whenever activities need to be undertaken. Instead of programmes being fully financed through designated budgets, schools are frequently expected to contribute, facilitate or absorb costs that were never anticipated in their annual financial plans.
ALSO READ:
Moi High School Mbiruri sends students home over unrest fears
The result is a cycle of continuous financial pressure.
Today it may be a training levy.
Tomorrow it may be a workshop contribution.
The following week it may involve facilitation for another programme.
Soon after, there may be a request to support a different initiative.
Individually, each payment may appear manageable. Collectively, however, they create a substantial burden that slowly erodes the financial stability of institutions already struggling to balance competing priorities.
What makes the situation particularly frustrating for many school heads is that these demands rarely exist in isolation. They arrive within an environment where schools are already dealing with numerous challenges.
Parents are facing economic hardships and are often unable to provide additional support. Suppliers are becoming increasingly impatient as delayed payments affect their own businesses. Communities expect schools to maintain high standards despite limited resources.
Government directives continue to expand administrative responsibilities. Amid all these competing pressures, principals are expected to find solutions to problems that often extend beyond their control.
The financial strain has also begun to raise broader questions about the sustainability of the current approach. If every training, meeting, workshop and activity requires schools to contribute, at what point does the system become unsustainable?
How many levies can institutions absorb before essential services begin to suffer? How long can school heads continue juggling multiple financial obligations without compromising the quality of education they are expected to deliver?
These questions have become increasingly urgent as the scale of some contributions becomes clearer. In one educational jurisdiction, for example, 269 schools are reportedly expected to contribute approximately Ksh 14,000 each towards a training programme.
ALSO READ:
This amounts to Ksh 3.766 million collected from schools within a single administrative area. Such figures naturally prompt debate about affordability, necessity and accountability, particularly at a time when many institutions are struggling to meet basic operational costs.
The concerns being raised should not be interpreted as opposition to training or professional development. On the contrary, most school leaders recognize the importance of equipping stakeholders with the skills and knowledge required to implement reforms effectively.
Training remains an essential component of educational improvement. The issue is whether the financing model being employed adequately considers the realities facing schools on the ground.
Many stakeholders believe that alternative approaches deserve serious consideration. The education sector demonstrated remarkable adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic when thousands of teachers, principals and education officers participated in virtual training sessions.
Digital platforms reduced logistical costs while ensuring that professional development continued uninterrupted. The success of those experiences has led many school leaders to question why more programmes cannot adopt online or hybrid models that significantly reduce expenses associated with venues, meals, accommodation and travel.
Such solutions would not eliminate all costs, but they could substantially reduce the financial burden currently being transferred to schools. More importantly, they would signal a willingness to align policy implementation with the economic realities facing educational institutions.
Beyond the financial implications lies another issue that deserves attention: the welfare of school leaders themselves. The modern principal is expected to perform an extraordinary range of responsibilities. They are instructional leaders, financial managers, procurement officers, counsellors, human resource managers and public relations officers all at once.
Whenever suppliers demand payment, it is the principal who must respond. Whenever parents seek explanations, it is the principal who must provide answers. Whenever government policies require implementation, it is the principal who must ensure compliance.
These responsibilities have expanded significantly over the years, yet the resources available to support them have not always kept pace. As financial pressures intensify, many school heads find themselves carrying an increasingly heavy burden. The constant need to balance budgets, negotiate with suppliers and respond to new financial demands creates stress that cannot be ignored.
This is why the debate about levies extends far beyond the amounts being requested. It is fundamentally about the sustainability of educational leadership in Kenya. It is about ensuring that the people entrusted with managing schools are not overwhelmed by responsibilities that exceed the resources available to them. It is about creating a system where reforms are supported by adequate funding rather than relying on schools to continuously bridge financial gaps.
Ultimately, the concerns emerging from school heads amount to a simple appeal for fairness and realism. They are not rejecting reforms. They are not opposing training.
They are not refusing to support initiatives aimed at improving education. What they are asking is whether policymakers can pause and consider the cumulative impact of the many financial obligations being imposed on schools.
As Kenya pursues educational excellence and seeks to strengthen learning outcomes, there is a need to ensure that schools are not viewed as an endless source of funding for every new programme that emerges. Educational reforms will only succeed if the institutions responsible for implementing them are adequately supported and sustainably financed.
Until then, the question echoing through many principals’ offices will remain difficult to ignore. With schools facing levy after levy, contribution after contribution and demand after demand, many school leaders are left wondering how much longer they can continue funding left, right and centre—and for how long the system expects them to keep carrying the load.
By Hillary Muhalya
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
