Public opinion directed its fury at parents following the unrest that gripped secondary schools during the second term.
The criticism was, in essence, an attack on the family unit—the smallest social institution into which children are born and raised.
Media reports quoted policymakers and opinion leaders accusing parents of abdicating their responsibility to mould their children. According to this view, student indiscipline and unrest in schools were evidence of parental failure.
The criticism was not entirely misplaced.
It is within the family that fundamental decisions about a child’s education and upbringing are made. It is also in the family setting that children first develop their identity, acquire language, build cognitive skills and learn values. Families socialize children into particular ways of thinking about morality, culture and social roles. In this sense, the family remains the primary agent of socialization.
However, it would be a mistake to attribute student indiscipline and unrest solely to parents or the family. The family is not the only institution that shapes children’s behaviour, values, norms and social skills.
As children grow, they move beyond the family setting and interact with other social institutions, particularly schools.
“While the development of a child’s character is not the sole responsibility of the school, historically and legally, schools have been and still remain major players in shaping the character of the child. Young people spend much of their lives within school walls. There they learn, either by chance or by design, moral lessons about how people behave,” says Kevin Ryan, former Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Ethics and Character at Boston University’s School of Education.
The family should therefore not bear all the blame for the increasingly brazen and destructive behaviour being witnessed in schools.
Ironically, many of the schools affected by unrest admit some of the brightest students, judging by placement examinations at the end of primary and junior school.
One would expect such students to be highly motivated and focused on learning. Instead, many have disrupted school programmes and been sent home.
It is easy to cite overcrowding, delayed capitation funds or reduced government funding as possible causes of student frustration. Congestion undoubtedly strains school infrastructure and creates discomfort.
Yet focusing exclusively on structural challenges does not provide the full picture behind the unrest.
There may be deeper issues at play.
Are we effectively communicating to students why they are in school? Do they understand the purpose of the 12 years of basic education? Are schools helping them achieve those purposes? More importantly, do those purposes resonate with them strongly enough to sustain their commitment until they sit their KCSE examinations?
Does school make sense to them? Does it give meaning to their lives?
Meaning is central to understanding and influencing behaviour.
“Without meaning, learning has no purpose. Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention,” American educator Neil Postman wrote in his book, The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School.
The reasons schools exist are not always self-evident to students. Appeals to academic excellence, university education or lucrative careers may not necessarily inspire them.
Who says every student dreams of joining a university? Who says all students aspire to top national examinations? Such motivations may not resonate with every learner, particularly those from privileged backgrounds where opportunities already seem guaranteed.
Schools must therefore redefine the meaning of education and help students connect learning to their personal lives and aspirations.
It is not enough to teach content, important as content may be. Education must demonstrate relevance to students’ present realities and future ambitions.
Too often, learning is linked to distant rewards such as high KCSE grades, competitive university courses or prestigious careers. Yet students are more likely to engage when they see direct connections between what they learn and who they want to become.
Communication experts often speak of “noise”—anything that interferes with the transmission and reception of a message.
In schools, noise may not be physical. It can take the form of poor programme design, excessive workloads or learning environments that undermine the very goals education seeks to achieve.
One of the most significant policy documents ever developed by the Ministry of Education to guide curriculum delivery is the Basic Education Regulations, 2015.
The regulations stipulate that learners should spend a maximum of six hours in formal classroom instruction each day. Official class hours should run from 8.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
The implication is clear: before and after these hours, students should rest, read independently or engage in self-directed learning activities. Formal teaching and syllabus coverage should not take place outside these prescribed hours.
Students should use evening prep time for personal study and assignments before getting adequate sleep.
Yet many schools schedule lessons from as early as 5.00 a.m. and continue formal teaching late into the evening.
Such practices deny students the eight hours of sleep recommended by psychologists and education experts.
Failure by schools to adhere to the Basic Education Regulations may be one reason many students increasingly dislike boarding school life.
When former Education Cabinet Secretary Prof. Jacob Kaimenyi presented the regulations in 2014, some school administrators opposed them. Critics argued that limiting teaching hours would encourage laziness.
But nothing could have been further from the truth.
Under the old system, teaching officially began at 8.00 a.m. and ended at 3.30 p.m. Students enjoyed school, syllabus coverage was manageable and completion of coursework often occurred in the third term rather than being rushed in the first or second term.
The focus was on meaningful learning, not merely finishing the syllabus.
The widespread disregard of the Basic Education Regulations has, without doubt, contributed to making school life increasingly burdensome and unattractive to learners.
Former Education Cabinet Secretaries Dr. Fred Matiang’i, Ambassador Amina Mohamed and Ezekiel Machogu all attempted to enforce school-hour regulations. Unfortunately, many institutions ignored the directives without consequence.
As a result, students continue to endure excessively long learning hours, including weekend classes, with little opportunity for rest.
Other factors also contribute to indiscipline, including peer pressure and the growing availability of drugs and other harmful substances.
This year’s unrest should provide an opportunity for policymakers, educators and parents to undertake a comprehensive study of the problem and develop lasting solutions.
One important question remains: what are schools in Uganda and Tanzania doing differently that makes student unrest less prevalent there?
Middle-class families in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania share many similarities. If differences exist, they are minimal.
Perhaps the answer lies not only within families, but also within the way schools themselves are organised and managed.
previous post
