New Information Surfaces Regarding Teachers Promotion Behind Door Meeting

New Information Surfaces Regarding Teachers Promotion Behind Door Meeting

New information has come to light regarding a secret high-level meeting between senior officials of the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) and the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) over the current teacher promotion issue.

The meeting, which took place last week in Nairobi, aimed to alleviate increasing discontent among teachers who believe they are being ignored in discussions about career advancement.

KNUT, headed by Secretary-General Collins Oyuu, advocated for urgent measures to address the backlog of outstanding promotions, according to sources conversant with the talks.

According to Oyuu, thousands of teachers have been identified as having stayed in the same job category for years, even though they have received better credentials and shown outstanding service.

According to reports, TSC officials cited delays in internal vetting and financial limitations as the reasons, but they assured that a full plan would be available by the end of the current term.

The agenda also included a discussion of the potential for making the existing promotion framework more inclusive and transparent.

Insiders characterized the discussions as “tense but promising” despite the lack of a formal agreement, and both parties agreed to meet again in two weeks.

The meeting takes place against a backdrop of increasing demands from teachers’ unions and warnings of industrial action if the promotion deadlock is not quickly addressed.

How TSC Promotions Were Distributed

In the most recent exercise that the National Assembly rejected, Machakos County had the most teachers promoted (690), while Garissa County had the fewest (303).

A review of Teacher Service Commission (TSC) promotion data reveals that, regardless of a county’s size or the number of applicants, the positions were distributed with only minor differences between the counties.

The Committee on Education of the National Assembly received the list, which details the quantity of openings by job grade as well as the number that was allocated to each county.

The MPs, however, rejected the list last week and granted the TSC until Thursday of the following week to provide specific criteria for how the promotions were awarded.

On April 2, 2025, the commission released the list of 25,252 teachers whose applications for a variety of promotional positions had been approved.

The list, however, provoked instant outcry from education stakeholders, including a group of MPs and teacher unions, who called it unjust.

The TSC was accused by the Education Committee, led by Julius Melly (Tinderet, UDA), of using a secret promotion criterion and not adhering to equity principles.

They claimed that the promotions unfairly favored certain areas and excluded worthy candidates from others.
He pondered the rationale for what seemed to be an equitable allocation of promotions throughout counties, stating that it deviated from historical norms and overlooked population trends.

Mr. Melly questioned, “How can you promote someone three times in a row while others have been stuck in one job group for over a decade?”
Mr. Melly stated that certain instructors had received numerous promotions in a short period of time, excluding other deserving candidates with greater experience.

He informed this reporter on Friday that the committee would look into instances where newly hired teachers are repeatedly promoted at the expense of others who have been shortlisted, interviewed, but never promoted over the years.

The MPs seek data indicating the number of years teachers have worked in specific job grades prior to being promoted.
TSC Chief Executive Officer Nancy Macharia justified the procedure before the Committee on Education, claiming that it was decentralized to guarantee regional representation and based in law.

“Aligning promotion policies with legal and regulatory frameworks: The promotion process strictly adheres to Regulation 73 of the Code of Regulations for Teachers (CORT), the Career Progression Guidelines (CPG), and the Policy on Selection and Appointment of Institutional Administrators,” she stated.

Due to an unequal distribution of opportunities among counties, teachers’ unions urged the commission to retract the released list of promoted instructors.

The TSC, however, presented data in its defense to demonstrate the figures for common cadre promotions and those promoted under the affirmative action program for the financial year 2024–2025, which included 5,291 teachers from all 47 counties.
For instance, the counties that received the most promotions under the program are Isiolo (282), Lamu (280), and Mandera (270). Kiambu (46), Nairobi and Murang’a (63 each), and Elgeyo Marakwet and Laikipia (64 each) are the counties that received the fewest promotions.

Promotions range from C2 to D5 across nine different grades.
Grades C4 and C5 had the highest number of promotions, with 5,425 and 8,508 teachers being promoted, respectively.
This was succeeded by 1,410 to D3, 1,445 to C2, 2,519 to D1, and 4,971 to grade C3.

Despite their smaller number, the upper executive tiers confirmed that 799 teachers had been promoted to D2, 128 to D4, and 47 to D5, indicating advancement in developing senior leadership in schools.
Moses Nthurima, the acting Secretary General of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (Kuppet), has criticized the TSC for what he calls the unjust distribution and promotion of teachers throughout the counties.

“Certain areas have suffered. Counties with larger teacher populations are being negatively impacted if the 25,000 slots are not allocated proportionately according to the number of teachers per county. Those who have remained stagnant for years will obviously be ignored. He told news reporters, “In some counties, they promoted teachers who have only served for six months, while in others, teachers who’ve served for over ten years were ignored.”