- Auditor-General reports have flagged unauthorised levies and unsupported expenditure at national schools, including Limuru Girls, Mang’u High and Alliance High School.
- Audits have found some schools collecting funds above the Sh53,580 annual fee ceiling through Parents Association contributions lacking required government approval.
- MoE has been urged to review the national school financing framework and improve transparency, ensuring accountability keeps pace with schools’ rising operational costs.
Kenya’s most prestigious public secondary schools are facing an uncomfortable financial reckoning after Auditor-General reports raised questions about unauthorised levies, unsupported expenditure and weaknesses in the collection and management of public funds.
The revelations have placed the spotlight on a contradiction at the heart of public education: schools are expected to maintain high academic, sporting, technological and boarding standards, yet their administrations are required to operate within a government-approved fee structure that may not adequately reflect the actual cost of running large institutions. Under the Ministry of Education’s approved fee structure, national schools are required to operate within an annual mandatory fee ceiling of Sh53,580 per learner. However, audit findings cited in reports covering several institutions indicate that some schools collected additional amounts through arrangements described as Parents Association contributions, support programmes and other charges.
The concern is not merely how much money parents are being asked to pay; it is whether public schools can introduce additional financial obligations without the necessary government approval, and whether every shilling collected and spent can subsequently be accounted for. That distinction is critical. A parent may willingly contribute money to support a school, but a voluntary contribution can become problematic when it effectively operates as a compulsory school charge. The existence of parental consent does not, by itself, remove the requirement for compliance with government regulations governing public schools. The Auditor-General’s findings therefore raise two separate but interconnected questions: are schools complying with the law, and is the government adequately financing the institutions it expects to deliver elite-level public education?
ALSO READ:
Named schools face scrutiny over unauthorised collections
Among the schools attracting scrutiny is Limuru Girls High School, where audit findings reportedly showed collections above the approved fee ceiling, alongside questions raised about expenditure and the administration of school finances. At Mang’u High School, auditors flagged money collected through a Parents Association Support Programme without the required approval. The institution has argued that the additional support was connected to the enormous financial demands of running a major boarding school with thousands of learners and extensive infrastructure. Alliance High School has also come under scrutiny over parental contributions, with parents having agreed to contribute additional funds towards the institution’s budget, though questions arose over whether the required approval for such collections had been secured.
The emerging picture is more complicated than the phrase “fee exploitation” might suggest. National schools are not ordinary institutions; they accommodate large populations of learners, provide meals, maintain laboratories, libraries, workshops, sports facilities, ICT infrastructure and extensive boarding facilities, while also employing support personnel whose salaries may have to be met from available institutional resources. The transition to competency-based education has introduced additional demands for equipment, practical learning, digital resources and specialised facilities. But financial pressure cannot become a licence for weak financial controls. Public institutions have a higher obligation to demonstrate how money is collected, banked, budgeted and spent, and where auditors identify expenditure without adequate supporting documents, weak recovery of outstanding fees or other financial-control weaknesses, school boards and management must provide satisfactory explanations and corrective measures.
Parents and schools face competing financial pressures
For years, parents have complained about charges that appear to go beyond officially approved fees, while school administrators have often maintained that the money is necessary to keep institutions functioning at the standard parents demand. Both concerns can exist simultaneously. Parents deserve protection from arbitrary or unauthorised charges, while schools deserve a funding model that enables them to provide the education, accommodation, nutrition and facilities expected of them. The solution cannot be to encourage schools to quietly invent alternative revenue streams, nor can the answer be to impose a rigid fee ceiling indefinitely while expecting institutions to absorb costs that have substantially increased.
ALSO READ: Basic Education Bill 2026 could reshape how Kenya’s schools are run
The Ministry of Education needs to confront the funding gap directly. If the government believes the current fee structure is sufficient, it should demonstrate through transparent costing how a national school can realistically meet its recurrent and development obligations within the approved ceiling. If the government accepts that costs have risen significantly, it should review the financing framework through the proper legal and administrative channels, rather than leaving individual principals and boards to negotiate informal solutions with parents.
There is also a need for greater transparency. Parents should be able to see clearly what constitutes an approved school fee, what constitutes an optional contribution and what services are being financed through each payment. Schools should publish simplified financial statements showing major sources of income and broad expenditure categories, while boards of management should exercise stronger oversight over institutional finances. Auditor-General findings should not simply disappear into official files; where irregularities are identified, responsible institutions should be required to implement recommendations within clearly defined timelines, and where public money cannot be accounted for, the appropriate accountability mechanisms should follow.
Funding reform must match financial discipline
The debate should also move away from treating national schools as isolated financial islands. The government has a responsibility to establish a funding formula that recognises differences in enrolment, boarding requirements, infrastructure, regional costs and special programmes, since a school serving thousands of boarders cannot necessarily be expected to operate under exactly the same assumptions as a much smaller institution. At the same time, prestige cannot exempt any public school from financial discipline. Academic excellence, historic reputation and impressive facilities do not place a school above public-finance rules; indeed, the more resources an institution controls, the stronger its accountability systems should be.
Australia tightens student visa rules: What Kenyan students need to know
The current audit controversy should therefore become an opportunity for a comprehensive review of how Kenya finances its national schools. The country needs a system in which parents know exactly what they are paying, principals know exactly what they are authorised to collect, boards know exactly what they are expected to oversee, and the government provides funding that corresponds realistically to the responsibilities it places on schools. Without that clarity, the cycle will continue: parents complain about additional charges, principals defend them as necessary, auditors flag irregularities, and the Ministry intervenes only after millions of shillings have already changed hands. That is not a sustainable model of public education.
Kenya’s national schools should remain centres of excellence, but excellence must include financial integrity, transparent procurement, proper documentation, lawful revenue collection and accountable use of public resources. The real test is therefore not whether national schools need more money; it is whether the country is prepared to fund them adequately while insisting that every additional shilling collected and spent remains within the law.
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
