Should governments pay for national examinations? Presidents who removed fees and the billions saved by families

A learner's ability to sit a national examination should not depend on the financial circumstances of their parents. When examination registration fees become a barrier, the education system risks turning an assessment of academic achievement into a test of household income.

Across Africa and beyond, governments have taken different approaches to financing national examinations. Some have abolished fees for eligible learners and taken responsibility for paying examination bodies through public funds. Others retain charges but provide exemptions or subsidies for selected candidates.

Kenya's experience shows the financial significance of this policy. By April 2022, the government had reported spending Sh27.7 billion on Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) and Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination fees since 2016. Of this, Sh5.5 billion went towards KCPE and Sh22 billion towards KCSE.

The expenditure represents money that eligible families would otherwise have had to raise for examination registration. However, the Sh27.7 billion is the cumulative government expenditure reported up to April 2022, not a verified calculation of total household savings through 2026.

The policy raises a fundamental question: should a learner who has completed the required coursework be denied the chance to sit a national examination simply because their family cannot afford the registration fee?

The central argument for public funding is that national examinations are part of the education system, not merely a private service bought by individual families. Where examinations determine progression to the next level of learning, access to them should be protected as a matter of educational equity.

Zambia: Hakainde Hichilema's free education policy

Zambia offers a prominent African example of a government taking responsibility for examination costs.

President Hakainde Hichilema's New Dawn Government introduced its expanded free education policy in 2022, removing examination fees for eligible learners in public and grant-aided schools. The government committed to financing the costs through public funding arrangements supporting schools and the Examinations Council of Zambia.

The policy did not cover every candidate. Learners in private schools and some external candidates continued to pay prescribed fees, making eligibility an important distinction.

The policy's underlying thesis was that the cost of education should not prevent children from completing their studies or demonstrating what they have learned. By shifting examination costs from eligible families to the state, the government sought to reduce financial barriers and widen access.

The reform also recognised that abolishing fees without replacing the lost revenue could weaken schools and examination administration. Public financing was therefore intended to support both learners and the institutions responsible for education and assessment.

Kenya: Uhuru Kenyatta's examination-fee waiver

Kenya's examination-fee waiver was developed under the administration of President Uhuru Kenyatta. It built on government funding arrangements introduced for national examinations in public schools and later extended to candidates in private schools.

The policy was meant to ease the financial burden on parents and ensure that eligible learners could sit national examinations without raising registration fees themselves.

The financial impact was substantial. By April 2022, the government had reported spending Sh27.7 billion on KCPE and KCSE examination fees since 2016, made up of Sh5.5 billion for KCPE and Sh22 billion for KCSE.

For ordinary households, the significance was practical. Parents who might otherwise have needed to find money for examination registration could direct those resources towards food, transport, uniforms, learning materials and other needs. The waiver also sought to prevent schools from sending learners home or denying them examination registration because of unpaid fees covered by the government.

However, the reported Sh27.7 billion should not be presented as the total saved by every Kenyan household, or as a cumulative figure through 2026. It is the government expenditure reported up to April 2022. A more recent consolidated figure would be needed to establish the current cumulative impact.

The policy also does not mean every candidate is exempt from payment. Repeating candidates, non-citizens and certain private or external candidates may be subject to different fee arrangements.

Malawi: Peter Mutharika's government removes examination charges

Malawi expanded its free secondary education arrangements in January 2026 by abolishing examination-related fees charged by the Malawi National Examinations Board in public schools. The reform also covered specified school charges, while boarding fees remained payable.

The policy forms part of a wider effort to increase access to secondary education, reduce financial pressure on households, promote equal opportunities and invest in human capital.

Its significance lies in recognising that removing tuition fees alone may not be enough, since families can still face examination charges and other expenses that make continued participation difficult. Malawi's approach places examination costs within a broader discussion on the affordability of secondary education. Its long-term impact will depend on whether government funding keeps pace with enrolment, staffing, learning materials and infrastructure needs.

What these presidential decisions have in common

The reforms in Zambia, Kenya and Malawi differ in scope and implementation, but they reflect a shared argument: governments have a responsibility to reduce financial barriers that can prevent learners from reaching essential stages of public education. The thesis behind removing examination fees rests on several considerations:

Equal opportunity: learners should have a fair chance to demonstrate their ability regardless of family income.
Continuity of education: national examinations often determine whether learners proceed to the next level of schooling, technical training or other opportunities, and financial obstacles at this point can disrupt that progression.
Protection of vulnerable households: examination charges add to the costs of uniforms, transport, meals and learning materials, and removing them can ease pressure on families.
Public responsibility: where examinations are integral to the national education system, governments can treat their cost as part of public education expenditure instead of leaving households to bear the entire burden.
Human capital development: wider access to education and assessment can help more learners complete their studies and qualify for further training and employment.

These are the policy objectives behind fee removal. Whether a reform achieves them must be assessed through evidence on access, participation, completion, outcomes and the adequacy of public funding.

Developed countries show there is no single model

Experience outside Africa shows that governments do not all follow the same approach. Some incorporate costs into publicly funded education, while others charge fees but provide exemptions or distinguish between enrolled students and private candidates.

In England, schools and colleges generally arrange examination entries for their enrolled learners, while private candidates may have to pay examination and administration fees themselves.

Ireland illustrates a different arrangement. For the 2026 state examinations, entry fees were set at €116 for a school-based Leaving Certificate candidate and €109 for a Junior Cycle candidate. Qualifying candidates covered by a full medical card were exempt.

Germany provides another contrast, because public education and state-regulated school-leaving examinations are generally integrated into the publicly funded school system. Arrangements differ across the federal states, so it would be misleading to assume that every examination and candidate category follows identical rules.

These examples show that a publicly funded education system does not automatically mean every examination is free for every person. The relevant questions are who pays, which learners qualify for support and whether fees create a barrier to participation.

When financial barriers interrupt education

Reports from different countries have drawn attention to disputes over unpaid education charges, examination access and the release of results. Such cases show how financial difficulties can interfere with education, but the consequences must be described accurately.

A candidate prevented from sitting an examination is not necessarily a permanent school dropout. Similarly, a candidate whose results are withheld has not necessarily abandoned education permanently. Individual reports can establish that financial disputes have affected particular learners, but they do not show how many children permanently leave school specifically because they cannot pay examination fees.

Governments and examination authorities should collect data on candidates who fail to register because of cost, those who miss examinations after registering and those who later return to sit them. Such evidence would help establish the extent of the problem and identify the most effective interventions.

The case for fee removal does not depend on exaggerating the number of affected learners. It rests on preventing a foreseeable financial barrier from denying eligible candidates access to a crucial stage of education.

How much has the ordinary Kenyan household saved?

The Sh27.7 billion reported by the government by April 2022 gives a clear indication of the scale of public investment in examination access. It is expenditure the government took on instead of requiring eligible candidates to pay KCPE and KCSE registration fees.

For an individual family, the saving depends on the examination and the applicable fee structure. In the 2025 KCSE fee schedule, the registration charge for certain private, repeating and non-citizen candidates was Sh7,200. That figure illustrates the potential cost for a candidate in a category required to pay, but it should not be treated as the amount every household saved under the waiver.

The direct benefit to families is the examination fee they no longer have to raise. The wider social benefit is the reduction of a financial barrier at a stage when the result can influence a learner's progression. However, the waiver does not cover all the costs of education. Families must still meet transport, meals, uniforms, stationery and, in some cases, accommodation.

It is also important to distinguish public expenditure from household savings. The spending figure shows what the state paid towards examinations. To calculate the precise amount saved by families, authorities would need to identify the number of eligible candidates, the fees applicable to each examination and the costs that would otherwise have been borne by parents. A consolidated report covering the years since 2022 would help establish how much more the government has spent and give a clearer estimate of the cumulative benefit to Kenyan households.

Free examinations require adequate public financing

A government cannot sustainably abolish examination fees simply by telling examination bodies to stop collecting money. The costs of preparing papers, registering candidates, securing materials, deploying personnel, marking scripts and processing results remain. When parents no longer pay, the state must provide an alternative source of funding, which may involve direct payments to examination councils, grants to schools or a combination.

Zambia's policy recognised this by providing for public funding to replace abolished examination fees. Kenya's system similarly relies on transfers from the National Treasury through the Ministry of Education to support the administration of national examinations.

However, the policy has faced significant budgetary pressure. In April 2026, Education Cabinet Secretary Julius Ogamba told Parliament that the approved recurrent budget for the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) in the 2025/26 financial year was Sh5.9 billion for national assessments, against a stated requirement of Sh12.723 billion. The allocation covered KCSE, the Kenya Primary School Education Assessment (KPSEA) and the Kenya Junior School Education Assessment (KJSEA), while the stated requirement also included school-based assessments.

The gap illustrates the financial challenge. Removing fees protects families from direct charges, but inadequate funding can leave examination bodies struggling to pay for essential services and personnel.

In 2025, proposals to reconsider the full examination-fee waiver also triggered public concern. The government later assured candidates that examination costs would be covered for that year. The debate exposed the tension between protecting households and managing competing demands on the education budget.

A sustainable policy must combine fee removal with realistic budgeting, transparent allocations, timely disbursement and public reporting on how the money is used. The relief provided to parents must not come at the expense of examination quality, timely marking or the integrity of national assessments.

Free examination registration does not mean free education

Removing examination fees is an important intervention, but it cannot resolve every financial obstacle facing learners. Families may still struggle to pay for transport, meals, uniforms, accommodation, stationery and other requirements, and a learner can be registered for a national examination and still find it hard to attend school consistently because of these costs.

Governments should therefore view fee removal as one part of a wider strategy to improve access, retention and completion. Where full public financing is not immediately affordable, targeted exemptions, subsidies for vulnerable households and phased expansion of support may help. Such measures should be clearly communicated so that eligible learners are not excluded by confusion over payment requirements.

What Kenya can learn

The guiding principle should be that a learner who has met the academic and administrative requirements should not miss a national examination solely because of an inability to pay a registration fee.

This requires clear rules on which examinations are covered, which candidates qualify and how private or external candidates are treated. It also requires timely government disbursements and reliable records of registered candidates. The government and examination authorities should publish the number of candidates supported, the total cost of examination funding and the extent to which financial barriers prevent registration or participation, along with updated cumulative expenditure figures.

Kenya can draw lessons from Zambia's financing of examination costs for eligible candidates, Malawi's integration of examination charges into free secondary education and its own history of examination-fee waivers. The aim should not be to copy another country's model without adjustment, but to ensure that the financing system is equitable, transparent and sustainable.

A learner's future should not depend on the ability to pay

The decisions associated with President Hichilema in Zambia, President Kenyatta in Kenya and the government of Peter Mutharika in Malawi show different efforts to reduce the financial burden of national examinations. Their policies differ in scope, eligibility and implementation, but they bring the same question into focus: who should bear the cost of an assessment that can determine a learner's educational future?

Kenya's reported Sh27.7 billion expenditure on KCPE and KCSE examination fees by April 2022 shows that examination-fee funding is a major public investment. For eligible families, the waiver has removed a direct cost and allowed them to redirect limited resources to other needs.

Yet the policy's success cannot be measured by money spent alone. It must also be assessed by whether eligible learners can register and sit examinations, whether examination bodies receive enough funding and whether the system remains fair and credible.

Ultimately, national examinations should measure what learners know and can do, not the financial circumstances of their parents. A fair system gives eligible learners a genuine opportunity to be assessed while ensuring that public funding can sustain credible examinations for all.