The government was unequivocal from the very beginning about how learner placement into Senior School would be conducted under the Competency-Based Education (CBE) framework. This was not a hurried or opaque process. In fact, 45 detailed slides were developed by KNEC and explicitly disseminated to explain the placement philosophy, criteria, subject clustering and pathways. These materials were shared openly with school leaders, teachers and other stakeholders well in advance. Consequently, the current dissatisfaction surrounding placements cannot, in all honesty, be attributed to government policy. Instead, it exposes a deeper challenge: a section of private school directors and teachers has neither fully understood nor genuinely embraced the vision and logic of CBE.
At the heart of the confusion is a fundamental misunderstanding of how learners were evaluated and placed. Placement was not based on generalised performance across all learning areas, nor was it driven by a points-based system reminiscent of the 8-4-4 era. Instead, learners were placed based on their performance in learning areas relevant to their chosen pathways.
This approach was clearly outlined in official government documents, which deliberately clustered Senior School subjects with corresponding Junior School learning areas. The intention was to ensure alignment, coherence and fairness – placing learners where their demonstrated strengths genuinely lie.
The placement process was therefore deliberate, transparent and well communicated. What appears to have caught many off guard is not a flaw in the system, but a mismatch between entrenched school practices and the expectations of the new curriculum. Some schools proudly celebrated learners who scored Exceeding Expectations (EE) across all nine learning areas, concluding that they had performed exceptionally well. Within the CBE context, however, this assumption is misguided.
Junior School learners operate at the Exploration Stage. At this level, learners are not expected to excel uniformly in all learning areas. Instead, they are expected to discover interests, identify strengths, and gradually begin to focus on pathways that align with their abilities and aspirations. Excellence under CBE is therefore not about breadth alone, but about depth in relevant areas.
Teaching learners to chase EEs in every learning area may produce impressive posters and celebratory messages, but it does not necessarily prepare learners for optimal placement.
It is also important to address a persistent myth that significantly distorted public understanding of the placement outcomes: points were not used in placement.
Contrary to claims by commercial activists and social media career commentators – particularly on TikTok – there was no conversion of raw marks into points for ranking purposes. These narratives were often advanced by individuals whose primary interest was not policy fidelity but commercial gain. Motivational talks, psychometric tests and paid “placement advice” became lucrative opportunities, even as they misrepresented government policy and heightened anxiety among parents and school administrators.
In reality, placement was anchored on raw marks within specific subject clusters. This explains why some outcomes appeared counterintuitive to those still viewing performance through an 8-4-4 lens. A learner in a private school may have scored EEs across all learning areas, averaging in the low 80s.
Meanwhile, a learner in a public school who attained very high EEs – say 95 to 98 – in the two learning areas required for a particular pathway was, by design, better positioned for placement. These outcomes are not anomalies; they are logical consequences of a competency-based system that values relevance and strength over generalised performance.
The confusion and, in some cases, misplaced celebration stem from a refusal – or failure – to interrogate official policy documents. It is therefore imperative that all stakeholders take time to read, understand, and internalise government frameworks, including: The Basic Education Curriculum Framework (2017 & 2019), Senior School Placement Guidelines and Other policy and implementation documents issued by the Ministry of Education.
As we move steadily towards 2026, private schools, in particular, must make a critical choice. They must let go of the 8-4-4 mindset and fully commit to supporting CBC learners to acquire competencies that will enable them to pursue meaningful, sustainable careers. The system has changed – and resisting that change only disadvantages learners.
READ ALSO:
CS Ogamba appoints Prof Momanyi to replace Dr Chumo as KU Council Chair
It is time to “allow learners to be.” Teaching until 8:00 pm is no longer necessary.
Early morning preps add no real value under CBE.
Commercial papers have no direct correlation with learner performance or placement.
The approved textbooks, curriculum designs, and learning experiences are sufficient for learners to succeed.
What is required now is not panic, shortcuts, or the commercialisation of fear. What is needed is faithful implementation, professional integrity, and a clear understanding of the CBC vision. Only then can the promise of CBE – equity, relevance, and learner-centred growth – be fully realised.
By Polycap Ateto.
Ateto is an educator of long standing and rank as well as an ardent CBE champion.
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
