- Competency Based Education is highly effective at the basic education level but is not suitable as a full model for university learning.
- Universities play a distinct role in fostering critical thinking theoretical understanding and knowledge creation which cannot be reduced to measurable competencies.
- Kenya should allow Competency Based Education to end at Grade 12 while adopting a balanced and flexible approach to teaching and assessment in higher education.
Kenya’s education system stands at a defining moment. The transition from the long-standing 8-4-4 system to the Competency-Based Education (CBE) framework under the 2-6-3-3-3 structure has been one of the most ambitious reforms in the country’s post-independence history. At its core, CBE seeks to produce learners equipped not merely with knowledge, but with demonstrable skills, values, and attitudes. It is a bold and, in many respects, necessary shift—particularly at the foundational levels of education.
However, as the first cohorts approach the upper levels of this system, a critical policy question emerges: should CBE extend into university education? The answer, based on both pedagogical logic and global best practice, is a big ‘No’. Grade 12 should mark the natural and necessary end of CBE, allowing universities to retain their distinct and indispensable role in society.
CBE is, by design, a learner-centred system. It prioritises continuous assessment, practical skills acquisition, and measurable outcomes. In primary and junior secondary education, this approach has clear advantages. It addresses long-standing criticisms of memorization without understanding, encourages creativity, and places emphasis on what learners can actually do with knowledge. For a country grappling with youth unemployment and skills mismatch, these are not trivial gains.
However, the very strengths of CBE at the basic education level become potential limitations when transposed onto universities. Higher education is not merely an extension of schooling; it is a fundamentally different intellectual enterprise. Universities are not just training grounds for skills -they are spaces for critical inquiry, theoretical exploration, and the generation of new knowledge.
Consider, for instance, a student pursuing physics at university. At lower levels, it is useful for the learner to demonstrate competencies such as assembling a simple circuit or explaining basic principles of motion. But at university, physics demands something deeper: engagement with abstract concepts such as quantum mechanics, mathematical modelling, and theoretical frameworks that may not have immediate practical “competencies” attached to them. The value lies not in what can be easily measured, but in what can be understood, questioned, and expanded.
The same applies across disciplines. A law student must grapple with jurisprudence and legal philosophy, not just the application of statutes. A medical student must understand the complex theoretical underpinnings of human physiology, not merely demonstrate clinical procedures. An engineering student must engage with advanced mathematics and design principles that go beyond observable competencies. In all these cases, reducing learning to a checklist of competencies risks undermining the depth and rigor that define university education.
There is also the question of assessment. CBE relies heavily on continuous assessment models, often involving portfolios, practical tasks, and frequent evaluations. While this is manageable—and even beneficial—at lower levels of education, its scalability in universities is questionable. Imagine a lecture hall with 500 students, each requiring individualized competency tracking across multiple courses. The administrative burden alone could overwhelm institutions, potentially leading to superficial assessments that defeat the very purpose of the system.
Moreover, universities in Kenya operate within a framework of institutional autonomy, guided but not micromanaged by regulatory bodies such as the Commission for University Education (CUE). They design their own curricula, develop programmes tailored to disciplinary needs, and align themselves with international academic standards. Imposing a uniform CBE model risks eroding this autonomy and homogenizing a sector that thrives on diversity and intellectual independence.
Globally, higher education systems have been cautious in adopting full-scale competency-based models. While elements of outcome-based education (OBE) are widely integrated—particularly in professional programmes—universities have largely retained hybrid systems that balance theoretical knowledge with practical skills. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, CBE is often confined to vocational training and certain specialized programmes, not the entire university system.
This is not accidental. It reflects an understanding that universities serve multiple purposes: advancing knowledge, enhancing critical thinking, and preparing individuals not just for jobs, but for citizenship and leadership. A purely competency-driven model, if rigidly applied, risks narrowing this broader mission.
Grade 12, therefore, presents itself as a logical exit point for CBE. By this stage, learners will have acquired a solid foundation of competencies -communication skills, problem-solving abilities, digital literacy, and practical knowledge in various fields. They will be better prepared than previous cohorts to transition into higher education. But the role of universities should be to build upon these competencies, not to replicate the same pedagogical approach.
Extending CBE into universities could also create confusion and duplication. Students would essentially remain in a prolonged cycle of competency assessment, with little shift in learning philosophy. This risks stunting intellectual growth at precisely the stage where independent thinking should be nurtured.
There are also implications for Kenya’s global competitiveness. Universities are judged not only by the employability of their graduates, but by their research output, innovation capacity, and contribution to global knowledge. If the system tilts too heavily towards competency certification at the expense of theoretical depth, Kenya risks producing graduates who are technically proficient but intellectually underprepared for complex, evolving challenges.
This is particularly significant in an era defined by rapid technological change. The problems of the future -climate change, artificial intelligence, public health crises -require not just skills, but deep, interdisciplinary understanding. They require individuals who can think critically, question assumptions, and generate new ideas. These are precisely the attributes that traditional university education, at its best, is designed to cultivate.
Proponents of extending CBE into universities often argue that it enhances employability by aligning education with labour market needs. While this concern is valid, it overlooks the fact that universities already incorporate practical elements through internships, industrial attachments, clinical rotations, and project-based learning. The challenge is not the absence of skills training, but the need for better integration between theory and practice.
Another argument is that a uniform system across all levels of education ensures coherence. But uniformity is not always desirable. Education systems, like ecosystems, thrive on diversity. What works for a six-year-old learner cannot simply be scaled up to a 22-year-old undergraduate without significant adaptation.
The way forward, therefore, is not to reject CBE altogether, but to define its boundaries clearly. Kenya should fully implement and refine CBE within basic education up to Grade 12, ensuring that learners acquire meaningful and relevant competencies. At the university level, institutions should be allowed the flexibility to adopt blended approaches—integrating outcome-based frameworks where appropriate, while preserving the depth and rigor of traditional academic models.
Policymakers must resist the temptation of a “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, they should focus on strengthening the transition between secondary and tertiary education, ensuring that students are adequately prepared for the shift in learning expectations. This includes revisiting admission criteria, curriculum alignment, and support systems within universities.
Ultimately, the question is not whether CBE is good or bad, but where it is most appropriate. In Kenya’s case, its strengths are best realized within basic education. Beyond that, a different approach is needed -one that recognizes the unique role of universities as engines of knowledge, innovation, and critical thought.
Grade 12 should not just mark the end of schooling; it should mark the transition from structured competency acquisition to the open-ended pursuit of knowledge. To extend CBE beyond this point is to risk blurring a boundary that is essential for the integrity and effectiveness of the entire education system.
As Kenya charts its educational future, it must do so with clarity and courage -embracing reform where it adds value, and drawing the line where it does not. Universities must remain what they have always been at their best: spaces not just for learning how to do, but for understanding why, and imagining what next.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Curriculum Justice for Kenya’s Grade Tens: Why Converting Them to Form Ones Could Save a Generation
The Author is a Professor of Chemistry at University of Eldoret, a former Vice-Chancellor, a Higher Education Expert and a Quality Assurance Consultant. Contact: okothmdo@gmail.com
