Teachers Push Back on Bill Merging Primary and Junior Schools as Six Education Bills Face Countrywide Scrutiny
The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET), backed by junior school teachers, has come out strongly against a proposed law that would formally merge primary and junior schools into a single “comprehensive school” model.
The teachers want junior schools recognised in law as independent institutions, distinct from primary schools, arguing that folding the two levels into one administrative unit will create more problems than it solves.
The opposition was voiced during the ongoing public participation exercise on six proposed education bills, an exercise being steered by the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Education under the chairmanship of Tinderet Member of Parliament, Hon. Julius Melly.
The hearings, which kicked off on September 14 and will run in various counties until September 25, 2026, are giving teachers’ unions, school heads’ associations, university management, students, parents and members of the public a chance to weigh in on what could become one of the most significant restructurings of Kenya’s basic education system in years.
What the Bill Actually Proposes
At the centre of the controversy is a piece of legislation published by the National Assembly on July 24, 2026, which seeks to repeal and replace the current Basic Education Act (Cap. 211). The Bill does far more than update definitions or streamline regulatory language.
Buried within its provisions is a legal framework for an entirely new education structure, one in which primary schools and junior schools would cease to exist as separate institutions in the way they currently do, and would instead be housed together within the same school setting.
In practical terms, this means that a single institution would be built to accommodate learners from Early Childhood Development (ECD) through primary school and into junior secondary school, all under one roof, run by one Board of Management (BOM) and financed through one consolidated funding arrangement.
The government has branded this arrangement the “comprehensive school” model, and if the Bill passes in its current form, it would give the model the full backing of the law rather than leaving it as a mere administrative policy.
This is not an entirely new idea plucked from nowhere. The comprehensive school concept traces its roots to the recommendations of the Presidential Working Party on Education Reforms (PWPER), chaired by the late Prof. Raphael Munavu.
The Working Party proposed that these merged institutions be headed by a principal, supported by two deputy principals, one responsible for the primary section and the other for the junior school section. It is this exact structure that has become the flashpoint of disagreement between the government and sections of the teaching fraternity.
Education Cabinet Secretary Julius Ogamba has already signalled that the government intends to proceed with the merger, indicating that the comprehensive school arrangement is expected to take effect from the next financial year.
That timeline has added urgency to the objections being raised by teachers, who feel that a major structural change is being fast-tracked without adequately addressing their concerns about job security, professional identity and the practicalities of running such large, multi-level institutions.
KUPPET’s Objection: “This Will Cause Chaos”
Junior school teachers, through KUPPET, have made their position clear: they do not want to be placed under a single head of institution alongside ECD and primary school staff.
Speaking during the public participation sessions, the union was blunt about what it sees as the risk of collapsing three distinct levels of education into one management structure.
“We cannot have one head running from ECD to Junior Secondary School. This will cause chaos,” the union stated, articulating a concern that has resonated widely among junior school teachers since the government first floated the comprehensive school idea.
Rather than a single principal overseeing everything from toddlers in ECD classrooms to teenagers in junior secondary, KUPPET wants junior secondary school to have its own dedicated principal, while ECD and primary schools continue operating under their existing, separate management arrangements.
The union’s argument goes beyond simple bureaucratic turf-guarding. Junior secondary school teachers, many of whom transitioned from the secondary school teaching cadre when the Competency-Based Curriculum was rolled out, have long felt that their professional identity sits uneasily between primary and secondary education.
Being formally absorbed into a primary-dominated institutional structure, they argue, would blur that identity further and could affect everything from how they are deployed, to how their career progression is managed, to how resources are allocated between the levels within a single institution competing for the same pool of funding.
This tension is not confined to one region. The debate has played out with particular intensity in areas such as Trans Nzoia and Kakamega counties, where stakeholders during the public participation exercise pushed back hard against the idea of a single head of institution overseeing ECD, primary and junior secondary school simultaneously.
The sentiment expressed there mirrors what has now become a broader, nationwide position among junior school teachers as the hearings move from county to county.
Other Stakeholders Weigh In
KUPPET and junior school teachers are not the only voices shaping the conversation. Other education stakeholders used the public participation platform to raise their own concerns and proposals, illustrating just how many competing interests the six education bills are attempting to reconcile at once.
The Kenya Secondary School Heads Association (KESSHA) called for the establishment of a basic fund dedicated specifically to secondary schools, a proposal aimed at cushioning secondary institutions from the kind of funding ambiguity that could arise once resources are pooled across merged institutions at the lower levels.
The Kenya Primary School Heads Association (KEPSHA), for its part, raised a more technical but equally consequential concern: how learner numbers are verified for funding purposes. KEPSHA proposed that assessment numbers, rather than birth certificates, be used as the basis for determining capitation and funding allocations to schools.
This proposal speaks to long-standing administrative headaches schools have faced in verifying enrolment figures, particularly in areas where birth registration has historically been inconsistent.
The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) used its platform to push for expanded opportunities for teachers to return to school for further training, calling on the government to fund both pre-service and in-service training programmes.
This proposal ties into the broader anxiety among teachers that structural reforms such as the comprehensive school model will demand new skills and competencies that many serving teachers have not yet been equipped with.
Representatives of persons living with disabilities also made their voices heard, calling for greater inclusion of learners with conditions such as autism within the reformed education framework.
They further proposed that existing Higher Education Loans Board (HELB) arrangements that currently support learners with disabilities be maintained rather than altered or diluted under the new legal framework.
The Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector brought hard numbers into the conversation. Kitale National Polytechnic, for example, reported a dropout rate of 15.2 per cent among its students, with inability to pay fees accounting for a striking 43 per cent of those dropouts.
The institution used this data to push for changes to the proposed student funding provisions, specifically calling for loan repayment obligations to begin only after a beneficiary has secured substantive employment, rather than on a fixed post-graduation timeline that does not account for the realities of the job market.
At the university level, the management of Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology in Kakamega County called for a clearer separation of institutional mandates across the education sector to avoid overlaps and accreditation conflicts, a concern that echoes, at the tertiary level, the same fear driving KUPPET’s objection at the basic education level: that merging or blurring institutional boundaries creates confusion rather than efficiency.
The university also proposed that the loan deduction rate for graduates be reduced from the proposed 25 per cent to just 5 per cent, arguing that the higher figure would place an unsustainable burden on young professionals just starting their careers.
Parents and faith-based organisations rounded out the list of concerns, calling for stronger parental engagement in the running of schools and greater government support for faith-based education institutions, many of which have historically played a significant role in Kenya’s education landscape, particularly in rural and underserved areas.
A Nationwide Conversation, County by County
The scale of this public participation exercise is itself notable. Grounded in Article 118(1)(b) of the Constitution, which obligates Parliament to facilitate public participation in its legislative business, the hearings are being conducted across 31 counties over a period of just under two weeks, an ambitious undertaking for a committee tasked with gathering, synthesising and eventually reporting back on the views of a hugely diverse set of stakeholders.
The rollout schedule reflects that scale. Having begun on September 14, the exercise moved to Kisumu, Makueni, Taita Taveta and Homa Bay counties on September 16. It proceeds to Machakos, Kisii, Embu and Kericho on September 17, before heading to Meru, Narok, Kirinyaga and Kajiado on September 18.
A short pause is followed by sessions in Wajir and Turkana on September 21, and then a broader sweep covering Kiambu, Nakuru, Murang’a, Baringo and other remaining counties between September 22 and 24.
The exercise is set to culminate in a final session at Parliament Buildings in Nairobi on September 25, running from 10:00 AM to 5:30 PM, where the Committee is expected to consolidate the views gathered from across the country before finalising its report.
Throughout the process, Hon. Melly has sought to reassure stakeholders that their concerns are being taken seriously. During the sessions in Trans Nzoia and Kakamega, for instance, the Committee noted the various positions raised, including KUPPET’s objection to the comprehensive school structure, and Hon. Melly assured participants that their views would be factored into the Committee’s eventual report for further consideration by Parliament.
What Happens Next
The coming days will be crucial in determining whether the concerns raised by KUPPET and junior school teachers translate into actual amendments to the Bill, or whether the government proceeds with its comprehensive school plan largely as originally conceived.
With the Cabinet Secretary having already indicated an intention to roll out the model from the next financial year, there is limited room for prolonged negotiation once the public participation exercise concludes and the Bill moves back to Parliament for further legislative stages.
For now, junior school teachers appear determined to keep pressing their case at every remaining hearing, from Kisumu and Homa Bay through to the final session in Nairobi.
Their central demand remains unchanged: that junior secondary school be recognised as its own institution, with its own leadership, rather than being absorbed into a single comprehensive structure spanning ECD, primary and junior levels.
Whether that demand is reflected in the final version of the Bill will depend on how much weight the Departmental Committee on Education, and ultimately Parliament, chooses to give it once the countrywide consultations are complete.
As the hearings continue to move from county to county, one thing is already clear: the comprehensive school model, though grounded in the recommendations of the PWPER and championed by the Ministry of Education, is facing real resistance on the ground from the very teachers who would be expected to implement it.
How that resistance is addressed, or ignored, in the coming weeks could shape not just the fate of this particular provision, but the broader tone of how the government manages the wider raft of education reforms currently before Parliament.