When a dormitory fire at Utumishi Girls Academy tragically claimed the lives of 16 young Kenyans, the entire country came together to grieve. Since then, a troubling wave of school fires has hit Murang’a and other counties. We can respond with outrage, investigations and tighter circulars.
Alternatively, we could ask a deeper question: what incentives have we built into our secondary school system that create pressure, congestion and risk? Education systems are shaped less by speeches and more by incentives.
Boarding schools are not a uniquely Kenyan phenomenon. In Britain, for example, they were designed to produce imperial administrators. In the US, they historically served the elite, and in Canada, some were tragically used to forcibly separate Indigenous children from their families.
Kenya inherited the British model and expanded boarding schools during the colonial era to produce a small, educated elite. After independence, this structure was maintained and scaled up. Over time, boarding became associated with prestige, discipline, and academic success.
Yet if we examine the world’s strongest education systems today, a pattern emerges. In the US, for example, fewer than one per cent of students attend boarding schools. In the UK, boarding remains a niche option. Singapore’s globally admired system is overwhelmingly day-based. The vast majority of secondary learners in China are day scholars. Australia relies primarily on day schooling, with boarding largely reserved for remote communities. It turns out that academic excellence does not depend on dormitories.
There is also a psychological dimension that we rarely discuss openly. Boarding environments are ‘peer-heavy’. Adolescents primarily live, study and socialise with their peers. This can foster strong friendships, independence and resilience. Peer bonding is powerful and, for many, becomes a lifelong network. However, developmental psychology also reminds us that sustained family attachment during adolescence plays a stabilising role in emotional growth.
When a child spends most of the year immersed in peer culture, the influence of the family naturally weakens. While this is not inherently harmful, it is also not neutral. It reinforces the argument that boarding should be a deliberate choice suited to particular circumstances, not the default option for most people.
So why has boarding become so prevalent in Kenya? Part of the answer lies in prestige, and part in scarcity. Certain national schools are in high demand. Parents are willing to make great sacrifices for a place. At the same time, however, boarding fees in public schools are capped to protect families from excessive charges. This intention is honourable. However, economics teaches us that when demand is high and the price is artificially constrained, the pressure does not disappear.
It shifts elsewhere. This shift is what economists call shadow pricing. If the official fee is set far below what many parents would willingly pay, the difference between their willingness to pay and the capped price becomes hidden value. This hidden value can manifest as intense competition, informal influence, overcrowding, and a scramble for limited spaces. Meanwhile, schools operate with limited funding even as expectations rise.
They are expected to deliver top-tier performance and maintain modern dormitories within tight financial constraints. The system is under strain.
When facilities are stretched, safety becomes fragile. While more inspectors and stricter enforcement are necessary, no country can police every dormitory 24/7. As our elders say, even the dancer stumbles when the drumbeat is too loud. If the pressure remains excessive, regulation alone cannot solve the problem. A more durable solution is to adjust incentives so that pressure reduces naturally. Firstly, we must ensure that day schools are seen as a strong first option, not a second choice.
Many day schools still require families to pay modest levies of around Sh12,000 per year. The total secondary school student population is 4 million.
At least 2.6 million of these students attend day schools. Thus, the total fees for day schools is Sh31.2 billion. Eliminating these levies and ensuring day schools are well resourced would provide a safety net for families. If parents knew that their child could receive a quality education close to home without additional charges, they would be less desperate to secure a boarding place. Demand would become more rational and less panic-driven.
Strong day schools also help to preserve family bonds during adolescence, enabling peer interaction at school while maintaining a daily parental presence at home.
Secondly, we should consider a multi-tiered boarding model. This is not about simply “raising fees”. It is about offering differentiated boarding packages that reflect varying levels of facilities and services. Some schools may offer prestige, enhanced accommodation, extended supervision hours, upgraded dining facilities and a wider range of extracurricular programmes for families who voluntarily opt for these packages. Others may maintain more basic boarding options at regulated levels. Within this framework, contributions from higher-tier boarding packages could support bursaries for needy students and strengthen day schools.
This design achieves several goals simultaneously. Schools hosting boarding students would have the means to upgrade dormitories, improve fire systems, reduce congestion, and maintain facilities without requesting extra government funding. Parents who can afford it would contribute more transparently rather than through hidden channels.
The government captures part of the surplus through structured levies that are reinvested in equity. Families who prefer not to opt for boarding or who cannot afford the enhanced packages have access to strengthened free day schools.
In this model, no additional financial burden is placed on the government beyond the deliberate investment in day schooling. Boarding improvements would be funded by those who choose them and can afford them. Day schools improve in quality and reputation. Boarding schools improve in terms of safety and facilities. This is a win–win arrangement, achieved not by expanding bureaucracy, but by aligning incentives.
