Weeks after the start of Form One admissions, the government has released a shocker that 131,854 young people who sat for the last Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) examination have not reported to secondary school.
While this is a big number and a crisis of sorts, it is troubling that the nation is believing the narrative that this population is sitting at home due to lack of school fees alone. And that once they get benefactors, they will all report to school! How can school fees hold more than 100,000 people while, according to the government, day schools are free?
It is sad that the country is relying on media reports of “bright and needy” students to conclude that school fees problems alone are keeping people who are interested in furthering their studies at home.
Can the candidates who scored less than 100 marks get a chance at schools that are charging the more than Sh50,000 some of the “stranded” learners are looking for?
Has the government factored in the number of KCPE graduates who are not interested in joining secondary schools and want to join the youth polytechnics (vocational training colleges) for artisan courses that Form Form Leavers have given a wide berth?
According to the government, 5,723 have joined the VTCs, a drop in the ocean and a sign that some could be preparing to go to the youth polys but have not been briefed properly. It is important to remember that while the government is building more VTCs, some teachers still believe that such colleges are for “failures”.
As a matter of fact, the VTCs admit anyone who can read and write, which makes the KCPE graduates “more qualified” for the artisan courses that are targeted at the Form Four graduates whose scores are below D plain and Class 8 graduates.
Has the government used the provincial administrators to mop up the said young people to know why they are not in “free” secondary schools? As the government launches the search for the 131,854 “languishing” at home, the mop-up should provide data that will help education authorities to plan better for basic education in the future.
It is sad the break-neck rush for the bursaries offered without a proper criterion and left in the hands of politicians, is exposing the learners to corruption early, with claims that some parents and guardians are paying “something small” (kitu kidogo, in Kiswahili) to be awarded?
Also Read: Sub-county schools shine as national academies rule A-Plain table
So, while bursaries are marked as a crucial support system for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to study, the plan is slowly becoming muddier with all sorts of abuses, what with the level of desperation that the “bright and needy” face.
There is a need to find better ways of awarding the bursaries since the painful screening that favours “bright and needy” is blocking some of the right people who would use the bursaries to deliver ground-breaking innovations, inventions, and ideas as “less bright” as they are.
Bursaries come from the national government, county administrations, corporates and individuals, but the focus seems to be narrow with the selection as easy as ticking boxes while failing to appreciate ability through a meticulous search. All these support pipelines have ignored the fact that there are “bright” people who failed to get the bursary “minimum grade” of 350 marks.
The controversy surrounding bursary awards raises broader questions about equity and access to education. While academic performance plays a role in eligibility, it does not necessarily reflect a student’s potential or future success.
There are many examples of individuals who succeeded despite their lower academic grades, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to bursary allocation.
There is a pressing need for everyone awarding bursaries to establish transparent and equitable formulae to ensure that the billions of shillings of support reach those who deserve the lift without insisting on “brightness” alone.
