The struggle over Junior Secondary School (JSS) autonomy has evolved beyond a polite policy debate. It has become a defining standoff within Kenya’s basic education landscape—one that touches leadership authority, professional identity, financial control, and the future integrity of the Competency-Based Education (CBE) system.
What began as an administrative adjustment under the reforms of the Ministry of Education and the regulatory oversight of the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) has now matured into a structural contest over who steers the ship of junior secondary education—and how.
At the center of this contest are two professional communities trained for different mandates.
Primary school teachers and headteachers were trained to handle early and middle childhood learners. Their preparation emphasizes foundational literacy, numeracy, classroom management for younger children, holistic child development, and broad subject delivery. Many are generalists, capable of teaching multiple subjects within one classroom. Over decades, they have built institutional cultures rooted in continuity—from Grade One through Grade Eight under the former 8-4-4 system.
JSS teachers, by contrast, were recruited and trained as subject specialists. Their preparation leans toward adolescent psychology, subject depth, competency-based assessment, and departmentalized instruction. They handle learners in transition—no longer children of early childhood, not yet senior secondary students. They teach Integrated Science with practical components, Pre-Technical Studies requiring tools and materials, Social Studies with analytical depth, and emerging pathway-based subjects aligned to CBE’s vision.
Different training. Different learners. Different curricular expectations. Yet they operate—at least for now—within the same compound. And therein lies the friction.
ALSO READ:
FGM fight boosted in Kuria after gender activists in Kenya,Tanzania agree to collaborate
Primary headteachers who resist full JSS autonomy argue from a position of structural caution. They are legally designated accounting officers of institutions hosting JSS. They sign off on budgets, oversee procurement, manage infrastructure, and answer audit queries. From their perspective, splitting JSS into a parallel administrative entity within the same compound risks duplicating bureaucracy, fragmenting leadership, and destabilizing schools—especially in rural and resource-constrained settings.
One primary headteacher interviewed in a semi-urban school warned that autonomy without infrastructure readiness would create “two principals in one gate.” He argued that discipline, resource allocation, and community engagement would suffer from overlapping authority lines. In his experience, even minor ambiguities in reporting structures confuse learners and parents alike.
A veteran primary teacher shared a pastoral concern. “We have nurtured these children from Grade One,” she said. “We know their families, their struggles, their strengths.” She fears that administrative separation might fracture the continuity of care that has historically supported learner stability. To her, JSS is not a foreign body—it is the natural progression of learners they have raised.
These concerns are not trivial. Institutional stability matters.
But JSS teachers see the picture differently. For them, the issue is not sentiment; it is structural coherence.
They argue that junior secondary was introduced as a distinct tier for a reason. CBE envisions specialized teaching, departmental organization, adolescent-focused discipline frameworks, and emerging career pathway orientation. Being administratively subordinated under primary leadership, they contend, blurs this identity. And increasingly, the debate has sharpened around money.
A section of JSS teachers now openly argue that resistance to autonomy is partly about control of funds. Their claim is stark: that some primary administrations prefer to retain JSS under their authority to access and spend JSS funds in ways that dilute junior secondary quality and stability.
This accusation demands sober analysis.
Currently, JSS capitation and related funds are disbursed through the host primary institution. In principle, these funds are meant to serve JSS learners. In practice, financial flows within a shared institution are intertwined. Infrastructure, utilities, security, sanitation, and emergency repairs affect all grades.
ALSO READ:
TSC tables plan to separate JSS from primary school administration
One JSS teacher recounted how funds earmarked for science equipment were redirected to repair storm-damaged lower primary classrooms. The repairs were undeniably urgent—but the result was that Grade Eight practical lessons continued theoretically. “Our syllabus expects experiments,” he said. “But our resources keep solving primary crises.”
Another JSS teacher narrated how subject-specific materials were postponed during procurement cycles to prioritize lower primary textbook shortages. “We are told to wait for the next disbursement,” she explained. “But our academic calendar does not wait.”
To JSS teachers, this pattern signals structural vulnerability. Without financial autonomy or at least ring-fenced departmental control, junior secondary risks permanent second priority status.
Primary headteachers reject the label of “lavish spending” as inflammatory and inaccurate. They argue that most primary schools operate under financial strain, not extravagance. Fixing toilets, repairing roofs, paying electricity bills, and securing compounds are not luxuries—they are necessities. These services benefit JSS learners as much as Grade Two pupils.
One headteacher insisted that pooled expenditure reflects operational reality, not greed. “There is nothing lavish about survival,” he remarked. He further pointed out that auditors examine institutional functionality as a whole. Artificially rigid budget compartmentalization may not withstand practical scrutiny when emergencies arise.
Objectively, both positions reveal deeper structural misalignment.
JSS teachers are held professionally accountable for specialized content delivery and learner outcomes. Yet they do not control the full financial levers required to guarantee those outcomes. Primary headteachers, meanwhile, carry legal accountability for funds but may not be academically specialized in JSS subject supervision. Authority and responsibility are not perfectly aligned.
Where alignment falters, suspicion grows. But autonomy is not a magic solution.
Separating administrative structures will not automatically generate laboratories or double funding. In many rural areas, infrastructure is shared because resources are scarce. Creating parallel boards, leadership posts, and accounting systems could strain already limited budgets.
ALSO READ:
Transformative rehabilitation restores learning in Sosian Ward, Laikipia County
Some primary leaders quietly question whether the autonomy push is partly influenced by career progression aspirations. JSS teachers, recruited under new frameworks, seek promotional pathways aligned with secondary structures. If permanently nested under primary hierarchies, they fear stagnation. Professional growth, however, is not illegitimate—it is part of workforce motivation.
Beyond finances and promotions lies a symbolic question: institutional identity.
Grade Seven to Nine learners are adolescents. They straddle childhood and adulthood. JSS teachers argue that institutional culture matters—assembly formats, discipline systems, uniform identity, and departmental organization. When adolescents are managed under structures primarily designed for younger children, developmental messaging may become blurred.
Primary educators counter that adolescence does not erase continuity. Emotional stability often depends on familiar environments. Abrupt identity shifts may destabilize learners who benefit from gradual transitions.
In interviews across counties, an unexpected convergence emerged. A primary headteacher admitted that JSS teachers possess subject depth he may not fully supervise academically. A JSS teacher acknowledged that primary administrators have decades of community trust and financial management experience that new JSS leaders would initially lack. These candid reflections suggest that the debate is less about enemies and more about evolving systems.
What, then, is the path forward?
First, transparency must replace suspicion. Clear budget lines, participatory planning meetings involving JSS departmental heads, documented ring-fencing of subject-specific funds, and internal financial reporting can reduce mistrust—even before structural autonomy is resolved.
Second, governance clarity is essential. If JSS is structurally distinct in curriculum and learner profile, its administrative model must eventually reflect that distinction. Hybrid ambiguity breeds friction.
Third, reform must be legislative, not emotional. Structural redefinition of basic education tiers falls under national law. Ultimately, the final verdict rests with Parliament. It is Parliament that must interpret CBE’s intent, define JSS’s legal status, harmonize schemes of service, and establish clear accountability frameworks.
Until then, schools operate in a transitional architecture—conceptually distinct but administratively intertwined.
The autonomy debate is not about ego. It is about coherence. It is about whether curriculum, training, finances, and leadership align seamlessly to serve adolescent learners at a critical developmental bridge.
Primary teachers were trained to lay foundations. JSS teachers were trained to build specialization on those foundations. These mandates are complementary, not adversarial.
But systems must evolve when mandates diverge.
If autonomy enhances quality, protects curriculum integrity, strengthens financial transparency, and respects professional training, then it deserves structured implementation. If fragmentation undermines stability, drains resources, and weakens community cohesion, caution is justified.
The question is not who controls the compound.
The question is who safeguards the learner.
And that answer must be grounded not in accusation or territorial instinct, but in objective evidence, legal clarity, and the unwavering commitment to educational excellence.
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
