By KENNEDY BUHERE
The Basic Education Bill, 2026, currently being subjected to public participation by the National Assembly’s Departmental Committee on Education, formally recognises the comprehensive school system as part of Kenya’s basic education framework.
Section 38 of the Bill states: “There shall be a Board of Management appointed by the County Education Board for public comprehensive schools; public primary schools; public senior schools; public special schools; public adult and continuing education centres; and public multipurpose development training institutes.”
The Bill defines a “comprehensive school” as an institution registered under the Act to offer basic education, where primary and junior schools are housed within a unified compound.
The legal recognition of the concept follows a recommendation by the Presidential Working Party on Education Reform (PWPER), established by President William Ruto to address concerns surrounding the transition of Grade Six learners to Grade Seven, from primary to junior secondary school, in 2022.
Stakeholders had raised concerns about the practicality of accommodating Grade Six learners under the Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) alongside about 2.6 million learners transitioning from the 8.4.4 system in existing secondary schools.
“It appears more efficient to retain Grade 7 and Grade 8 in Primary Schools, where there is already some infrastructure (for Standard 7 and 8), which can be improved to meet CBC standards, than going to construct new classes in selected Secondary Schools,” the PWPER report states.
These concerns led stakeholders to recommend that Junior Secondary School (JSS) be hosted within existing primary schools, a proposal supported by the PWPER.
The working party subsequently suggested that the integrated primary and junior secondary levels be known as comprehensive schools. Yours truly was present during this session.
Hence the recommendation that the Ministry of Education establish a comprehensive school system in which learners from Pre-Primary to Grade 9 would be managed as one institution headed by a single head of institution.
The phrase “comprehensive school” is therefore relatively new in Kenya’s education lexicon. It essentially refers to an institution bringing together different levels of basic education, particularly primary and junior secondary school, under one institutional framework.
While a new institutional framework was necessary, the designation “comprehensive school” to describe the consolidation of primary school and part of secondary education is problematic.
This is why.
In education policy, a comprehensive school acknowledges certain fundamental realities about learners and the curriculum.
First, students differ considerably in ability, and the school system, particularly after primary or elementary education, must find ways of responding to these differences.
Second, post-primary education must address the learning needs of academically gifted students who, proportionally, constitute a relatively small section of the population.
Third, secondary education must provide programmes for those who intend to enter the workforce immediately after completing school.
Fourth, and by no means least, post-primary education must provide a general education for all — both those preparing for college and university and those who will complete their education at secondary school before entering the workforce.
The term “comprehensive” therefore envisions a balanced curriculum at the high-school level. Such a curriculum combines academic and vocational education.
Semantically, comprehensive education brings together two facets: academic and vocational learning. It is the opposite of specialised education, which is predominantly academic on one hand or purely vocational on the other.
The concept was established in the United Kingdom during the early 20th century and later found its way into the United States. One of its most outspoken proponents in the US was former Harvard president James Bryant Conant.
In his book The American High School Today, Conant identified three principal objectives of a comprehensive school: providing general education for all citizens; offering programmes for students intending to enter employment immediately after graduation; and preparing those whose careers would require further education at college or university.
Conant consequently recommended that high schools — equivalent to our secondary schools — provide students with substantial exposure to mathematics, science and foreign languages, particularly to prepare academically talented learners for higher education.
He also urged schools to provide adequate vocational programmes for students planning to enter the workforce after graduation.
In a comprehensive high school, therefore, students would receive both general education and opportunities to pursue programmes aligned with their abilities, interests and vocational goals.
Words are not idle objects. They acquire meaning and shape how we perceive and reflect on issues.
The words we use provide a window into what is in our minds and what exists around us. They can expand or limit our mental horizons. An expanded horizon allows flexibility, creativity and imagination when confronting policy questions and challenges. A limited horizon can lead to rigidity and sterile thinking.
Without doubt, the working definition of “comprehensive school” in the Bill risks narrowing the original meaning of the concept and could, in the long run, cloud policy decisions.
If I may dare the devil, lawmakers should ask whether it is prudent to keep 16-year-olds within a basic education system that is largely academic in orientation, particularly those who, for whatever reason, may not proceed beyond junior school.
The former 7.4.2.3 system — under which I received my education — provided two important safety valves for such students.
The first was vocational training, through institutions formerly known as village polytechnics. These centres absorbed students who had completed Class Seven with the Certificate of Primary Education (CPE), as well as those who had entered Form One but subsequently dropped out.
The second safety valve was the Kenya Junior Secondary Examination (KJSE) in Form Two. Students who sat the examination could proceed into careers such as the security forces and teaching, while others joined youth polytechnics or pursued other occupations.
They left school before reaching Form Four, but had acquired additional cognitive and non-cognitive skills during their two years of secondary education — skills that were critical in the workplace and later life.
Dropping out of school before attaining 18 years is regrettable. But leaving school before 18 after undergoing a rigorous secondary curriculum combining general and vocational education, with certification at Grade Nine or Ten, is a different proposition.
Such an experience can better prepare young people for employment, vocational training and the challenges of adult life.
Remaining in school for longer can enhance critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. It can also strengthen non-cognitive skills such as self-discipline, resilience, empathy, teamwork, communication and leadership.
The names we give policy actions are as important as the substance of those policies. They can either expand or limit the flexibility required to address present, emerging and future challenges.
Lawmakers should therefore reconsider whether “comprehensive school” accurately captures the broader educational philosophy the term traditionally represents.
The Basic Education Bill, 2026, provides an opportunity not merely to define an institutional arrangement, but to ensure that the education system accommodates the diverse abilities, interests and aspirations of Kenyan learners.
……Mr Buhere is a communications consultant
