By KENNEDY BUHERE
The Basic Education Bill, 2026, now before the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Education, is set for deliberation and, in the fullness of time, could become law.
If Parliament approves the Bill and it receives Presidential assent, the Basic Education Act, 2013, will be repealed.
Lawmakers should seize this opportunity to address some of the ambiguities, vagueness and uncertainties that continue to permeate education policy and legislative reforms.
We have no option. Clarity, precision and definiteness must define the language of policy and legislation governing education.
There must be precision in the words, phrases and sentences through which educational ideas and objectives are expressed. Without this, the country will remain trapped in its current discomfort with education instead of moving to a new frontier where basic education can conclusively address questions of access, equity and quality of services provided to children.
The focus of the Basic Education Bill, as was the case with the Basic Education Act, 2013, is excessively on the structural aspects of education reform at the expense of curriculum.
Education reform has two fundamental facets: structural reform and curriculum reform. Both are central to education, and the law should address them with equal clarity and depth.
While the Bill is relatively clear on structural matters, it is less precise and less unambiguous on the ultimate essence of education: curriculum content.
Structural aspects of education encompass the layers and levels of schooling, education financing, teachers, the bureaucracy responsible for managing education and centres of control.
Curriculum reform, on the other hand, deals with the substance of education: what learners should know, why they should learn it, how they should learn it and what society expects education to achieve.
This is where the Bill appears cagey.
The words of the law on education must be precise. Lawyers will tell you that the words of the law are the law. The substance, meaning, aims and ambitions of education should not be left to conjecture.
There is a useful concept in linguistics known as a referent. A referent is the person, thing, object or idea to which a word or expression refers. It may be concrete or abstract, but it must be sufficiently clear to those interpreting it.
In the preliminary provisions of the Basic Education Bill, 2026, “basic education” is defined as a programme offered at pre-primary, primary, junior school and senior school, including programmes offered at adult and continuing education centres.
Structurally, that definition identifies the various levels at which basic education is provided. But basic education has a meaning beyond the physical or administrative structure through which it is delivered.
That meaning should be explicitly stated in the law.
Basic education is the foundational level of learning that equips individuals with essential competencies in literacy, numeracy and critical thinking. These are foundational capabilities upon which subsequent learning depends.
Mastery of the programmes offered at pre-primary, primary, junior and senior school levels also depends on something beyond the mere existence of those levels: the learner’s ability to acquire, process and apply knowledge.
Adult and continuing education, for instance, cannot be effective without proficiency in literacy and numeracy and the reasoning abilities that reading and comprehension develop.
Reading and numeracy are gateways to knowledge—whether academic, technical or vocational. Learning depends fundamentally on the ability to read accurately, fluently and with comprehension.
The drafters of the Basic Education Bill, 2026, should therefore have consulted as widely as possible. Such consultations would have helped establish not only what basic education refers to, but also its meaning, objectives, aims and goals.
These should go beyond imparting the competencies outlined in the Basic Education Curriculum Framework, 2016, which provides the blueprint for Competency-Based Education (CBE).
Education has several essential components: knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and habits of thinking and behaviour.
An education law should provide guidance on the place of each of these components in schooling and, importantly, the purpose they serve beyond meeting the needs of the labour market.
Policymakers in Indonesia recognised this broader dimension of education when they enacted the 2003 Act on the National Education System.
The law describes education as a conscious and planned effort to create a learning environment and process through which learners can develop their full potential, including spiritual strength, self-control, personality, intelligence, morals, character and skills needed by individuals, communities and the nation.
This is an important lesson for Kenya.
The fundamentals of basic education are rooted in an educational policy that respects the cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity. Access to this vast fund of knowledge, skills, practices and capabilities is, to a significant extent, mediated through traditional literacy—the ability to read and make meaning from what one has read.
As Peter O. Mong’are, Country Director of WeVoi, puts it, there can be no meaningful critical thinking or complex problem-solving without a deeply ingrained common core of knowledge.
He argues that mastering difficult and structured content can help learners develop work ethic and resilience, while grounding them in disciplines such as mathematics, literature, science and history and fostering structured habits of thought.
The point is fundamental: skills do not exist in a vacuum. Competencies are developed through engagement with knowledge.
The kind of education a country gives its children is ultimately embedded in policy and law. The law establishes the framework within which education is delivered, and for that reason it must be directive, clear, precise and unambiguous.
When the education system fails, the political leadership ultimately bears the responsibility.
The Cabinet Secretary for Education, as guardian of institutions that shape children and young people, must therefore have access to the finest advice available on education.
Advisers should be people of letters and scholarship, conversant with contemporary thinking across the spectrum—from conservative to progressive and radical approaches to education. They should be able to distinguish fashionable ideas from those that have enduring educational value and advise the Cabinet Secretary accordingly.
Members of the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Education should similarly have access to impartial policy advice from the best minds as they scrutinise the Bill and listen to citizens during public hearings.
Policymaking and lawmaking should not merely change education policy. They should produce an enlightened change in education.
This is an opportunity to establish a sound basis for educating Kenyan children for the next 20 years and beyond.
Let us bring back rigour.
Rigour in beginning reading at the lower levels of schooling. Rigour in the curriculum. Rigour in curriculum materials. Rigour in inspection and supervision. Rigour in the management of examinations.
We have not been courageous enough in confronting the persistent menace of examination cheating in our national examination system.
Fifty years ago, in 1976, former British Prime Minister James Callaghan, speaking at Ruskin College, Oxford, raised questions that remain relevant today. He argued that education must equip young people with basic literacy, numeracy, reasoning ability, knowledge, respect for others and an appetite for lifelong learning.
His message remains instructive: education should neither produce technically efficient but socially detached individuals nor socially well-adjusted people who lack the skills necessary to participate meaningfully in the economy and society.
Kenya’s education reformers should ask themselves whether the system is heading in the right direction.
The Cabinet Secretary, Parliament and the President have an opportunity to stamp their legacy on education.
They have a historic duty to restore educational excellence in all public schools, whether in rural or urban areas.
This can be achieved only if they pay a little more attention to the contents of the wine than the beauty of the wineskins. Buhere is Communication Specialist [email protected]
