- Kenya’s capitation rate should reflect the actual cost of education rather than remain fixed.
- The writer has proposed a public capitation transparency dashboard and a weighted funding model that directs additional resources to schools and learners with greater needs.
Kenya’s latest school-capitation controversy should not end with another promise that money has been released. It should trigger a much bigger national conversation: is Kenya financing education according to what schools actually need, or according to what the Treasury can afford to release?
That question has come into sharp focus as public schools begin the third and final term of the 2026 academic year amid warnings of financial strain. The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) has raised concern over what it describes as a Ksh6,000 per-learner shortfall, saying schools are receiving about Ksh16,000 against the annual Ksh22,244 capitation figure for regular learners. The government, however, says it has released Ksh18.508 billion in Term Three capitation for public basic education institutions, including about Ksh1.4 billion for Free Primary Education, Ksh6.14 billion for Free Day Junior School Education and Ksh10.96 billion for Free Day Secondary Education. Education Cabinet Secretary Julius Ogamba has also warned schools against imposing unauthorised levies on parents.
Both positions require reconciliation. If the government has released the money, schools should be able to establish exactly what they have received. If schools are still operating with significant funding gaps, the government should explain the cause. And if the statutory allocation itself is no longer adequate to meet the real cost of education, Kenya must review it. The figure of Ksh22,244 has acquired near-symbolic status in Kenya’s education debate, but a capitation rate is a financing instrument, not a fixed monument.
If the cost of food, electricity, water, sanitation, learning materials and maintenance increases, the financing formula must respond, since schools operate according to today’s prices rather than historical budget figures. The current debate should therefore move beyond whether schools have received their allocation and instead ask whether the allocation reflects the contemporary cost of providing education.
ALSO READ:
Homa Bay KNUT fundraiser raises Sh4m as union backs dialogue with government
International evidence offers useful perspective. The OECD reports that governments in OECD countries spend an average of about $12,051 per primary learner and $13,402 per lower-secondary learner annually, though the variation is enormous, with some countries spending below $3,000 while Luxembourg spends more than $25,000 per primary learner and over $30,000 at the lower-secondary level. Kenya does not need to match wealthy countries dollar for dollar, but it does need a financing system reliable enough to support the education it promises.
Finland is frequently cited in international education discussions not simply because it spends more, but because its funding is integrated into a broader system of teacher quality, equity, learner support and public provision, a principle Kenya could apply by ensuring funding supports the entire learning environment, including qualified teachers, adequate classrooms, instructional materials, sanitation and targeted support for disadvantaged learners.
Closer comparisons are also instructive. The OECD notes that countries such as South Africa dedicate a relatively high share of national income to primary and lower-secondary education compared with some richer countries, demonstrating that education investment should be judged not only by the absolute amount spent, but in relation to a country’s economic capacity and national priorities. The OECD also reports that in public institutions across OECD countries, governments cover almost all expenditure at primary level on average, with government funding accounting for about $11,900 per learner, underlining that where the state declares education a public responsibility, it must be prepared to finance the core cost of that responsibility rather than allowing household contributions to substitute for predictable government financing.
The most damaging aspect of the current debate may not be the alleged Ksh6,000 gap itself, but the uncertainty surrounding it. A school head needs to know how much money is coming, when it will arrive, how many learners will be funded, what expenditure can legitimately be covered, and when the next tranche will be released. Without predictable answers, school planning becomes difficult: a principal cannot negotiate effectively with suppliers when cash flow is uncertain, a board cannot exercise effective oversight when financial information is incomplete, and parents cannot understand why they are being asked for money when the government says funding has already been released.
Keep politics out of school tendering processes; let institutional governance structures work
One solution would be a public digital capitation dashboard for every public school, showing the number of learners used in the calculation, the approved annual capitation, the amount released, the date of disbursement, the amount received by the institution, the expenditure categories covered, and any outstanding balance. Such a system would improve accountability and allow bottlenecks to be traced, transforming the capitation debate from accusation into evidence.
Kenya should also rethink how school heads manage institutional finances, giving principals reasonable discretion to prioritise legitimate institutional needs within approved budgets, while maintaining rigorous procurement, auditing, reporting and oversight. Equally important is protecting learners from becoming the default financing mechanism when schools face shortages, since household capacity to absorb unexpected charges varies dramatically, and that gap directly undermines the equal access public education is meant to guarantee.
The government should establish clear rules separating legitimate parental contributions from costs that should be fully financed through public funds, and where schools are prohibited from imposing charges, the financing system must provide them with adequate resources to comply.
The dispute comes at a particularly difficult point in the calendar, with the third term being the final stretch of the academic year as schools complete syllabuses, prepare candidates for national examinations and manage additional KNEC-related administrative demands. KUPPET has separately raised concerns about contracts and remuneration for teachers undertaking examination duties, with its Vihiga branch advising members to withdraw from KNEC activities until the issues are addressed, a dispute that needs swift resolution given how much rides on uninterrupted national examinations.
Kenya should now consider an independent review of the school-capitation formula, examining the actual cost of feeding, utilities, sanitation, learning materials, examinations, maintenance, administration and learner support, and whether a single flat per-learner rate adequately reflects differences between schools. A remote school does not necessarily face the same costs as one near a major urban centre, a boarding environment has different operational requirements from a day school, and a school serving learners with additional needs may require greater resources. A weighted capitation model, in which a basic allocation follows the learner while additional resources are directed toward schools and learners with higher needs, would be a more sophisticated approach than a flat per-learner rate.
ALSO READ: How students handle university transfers after KUCCPS placements
The future of Kenyan education financing should be built around three principles: adequacy, equity and accountability. Adequacy means schools receive enough money to provide the services expected of them. Equity means learners and institutions with greater needs receive additional support. Accountability means every allocation can be traced and every institution can explain how public funds were used. There is no single foreign model Kenya can import wholesale, but the underlying principles- predictable financing, need-responsive resources and transparent expenditure- are transferable.
The Ksh6,000 gap is therefore a national warning rather than another annual ritual to be repeated. Kenya has invested heavily in expanding access, recruiting teachers, constructing classrooms and implementing Competency-Based Education. The next phase must be about financing quality, ensuring the money reaches schools, reaches them on time, and is enough for the job it is expected to perform. The real measure of free education is not how much money the government says it has released. It is whether a child can remain in school without the family’s poverty becoming the price of admission.
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
