By Kepher Otieno - Reporter
Kenya, 14 December 2025 - Leaders and community representatives in Nyanza have strongly opposed a proposed mandatory KSh 3,000 feeding fee for junior school pupils, describing it as burdensome and poorly timed.
The dispute underscores broader tensions in Kenya’s education system, where parents, lawmakers, and school administrators struggle to balance rising costs with constitutional guarantees of free basic education.
Speaking out against the fee, Dr James Nyikal, MP for Seme, said, “This charge is punitive for families who are already struggling. Imposing KSh 3,000 per child without proper consultation is unacceptable. We will push for its immediate repeal once Parliament reconvenes.”
He emphasised that families with multiple school-going children face cumulative costs that could reach tens of thousands of shillings annually, creating financial strain and potentially disrupting children’s learning if meals are withheld for non-payment.
The controversy arises amid persistent gaps in education financing.
Government allocations intended to cover basic school costs are often insufficient or delayed, forcing schools to seek alternative revenue streams. Some public schools receive minimal funding, which is inadequate to support essential services such as meals, instructional materials, and school operations.
With limited resources, schools have sometimes had to make difficult decisions, including fee hikes or temporarily sending pupils home.
While officials maintain that free basic education is a constitutional right, financial constraints have led many schools to rely on parental contributions, a situation that has sparked disputes like the current one.
Critics argue that the fee may lack legal and procedural justification.
They maintain that imposing mandatory charges without proper legislative oversight could contravene national education policies and the constitutional mandate for free basic education. The debate highlights a broader challenge in education financing, where ad-hoc measures risk undermining predictability, equity, and long-term planning.
More from Kenya
Dr Nyikal also noted, “The government has a responsibility to ensure that free basic education is upheld. Parents should not be forced to cover costs that are supposed to be covered by public funds. This fee sets a dangerous precedent.”
His remarks echo the concerns of other local legislators, who emphasize the tension between government responsibilities, school operational needs, and family financial capacity.
While school feeding programs are widely supported for their nutritional and attendance benefits, community members have expressed strong opposition to mandatory payments.
Many families already face economic pressures, including food insecurity, making the KSh 3,000 fee particularly challenging. Community-driven initiatives have stepped in to provide meals through donations or fundraising, illustrating how local actors attempt to fill gaps left by inadequate public funding.
These grassroots efforts demonstrate the importance of feeding programs while exposing the fragility of relying on ad-hoc funding sources. The debate over the mandatory fee underscores the need for sustainable, equitable, and transparent mechanisms to fund essential services in schools.
The controversy carries broader implications for Kenya’s education sector. Policymakers must find ways to maintain feeding programs without overburdening parents, ensure funding aligns with constitutional mandates, and protect vulnerable families from hidden or sudden charges.
Should the fee be repealed or revised, it could set a precedent for managing school costs more transparently and equitably. The case highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing the right to free education with the practical financial realities facing schools, families, and government budgets.
Resolving the issue will require coordination between national authorities, local governments, schools, and communities.
While all parties agree that school feeding programs are essential, the central debate remains: who should bear the cost, and how can it be structured to benefit children without placing undue strain on families?
