The proposal by Khwisero MP Christopher Aseka and Bungoma Governor Kenneth Lusaka to use morality clauses to deny government funding to "unruly students" and pregnant teens is very alarming and counterproductive. This is disheartening because both of these leaders have influential voices in determining how fee bursaries are allocated to students in their jurisdictions.
This approach, while seemingly aimed at promoting responsibility, ultimately harms education and creates further inequality. Education funding should be based on need, not morality. Every student deserves the opportunity to learn and reach their full potential. By investing in education and providing support services, we can create a brighter future for all, not just a select few.
Education is a fundamental human right, and denying pregnant teenagers access to schooling could violate their rights and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality. Instead of punishing them, efforts should be made to support and empower these young mothers to continue their education while balancing their parental responsibilities.
Withdrawing financial support punishes teenagers who may have already made mistakes. Teen pregnancy is a complex issue with social and economic factors at play. Simply removing pregnant teens from school does not address the underlying issues that contribute to teenage pregnancies, such as lack of comprehensive sex education, limited access to contraceptives, poverty and gender inequality.
Comprehensive approaches that address these root causes are more likely to be effective in preventing teenage pregnancies in the long-term. Taking away education funding only serves to derail their future prospects, hindering any chance of them becoming responsible adults.
What constitutes "unruly behaviour" can be subjective. This opens the door to bias and unfairly targets certain students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. What one person deems as unruly may differ significantly from another's perspective. This opens the door to discriminatory practises, particularly against students from marginalised backgrounds who may already face systemic barriers to education including their inability to pay secondary school fees.
Legislators cannot unilaterally impose their personal moral standards onto the diverse fabric of Kenyan society without risking unfair treatment and further inequality. The focus should be on education, not moral policing.
Education is the key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Denying funding pushes these teens further into economic hardship, limiting their options and perpetuating social problems. By denying funding to certain groups of students, particularly those already facing socioeconomic challenges, policymakers and legislators or leaders with ultimate say on CDF funding risk perpetuating existing inequalities.
Rather than addressing the root causes of issues such as teen pregnancy and behavioural problems, this approach exacerbates social divisions and limits opportunities for those most in need. Fear of losing funding may discourage students from seeking help for issues such as pregnancy or drug abuse.
This only worsens the situation and creates a culture of silence. Keeping these teenagers away from school due to failure to be awarded bursaries may stigmatise and discriminate against them, leading to social exclusion and mental health issues. It could also reinforce harmful stereotypes and perceptions about these behaviours and may further marginalise vulnerable groups.
Instead of punitive measures, these leaders should focus on implementing supportive and inclusive policies that provide pregnant teenagers and students with behaviour problems with access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, educational support, childcare assistance, and social protection programmes.
The writer is a commentator