New Information Surfaces Regarding Closed-Door Meeting on Teacher Promotions
New information has surfaced concerning a confidential high-level meeting involving senior officials from the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) and delegates from the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) regarding the ongoing teacher promotion dilemma.
The meeting, which took place in Nairobi last week, aimed to tackle the increasing frustrations among teachers who feel neglected in terms of career advancement.
Insiders familiar with the talks disclosed that KNUT, under the leadership of Secretary-General Collins Oyuu, advocated for swift action to resolve the backlog of unprocessed promotions.
Oyuu reportedly submitted a roster of thousands of teachers who have remained stagnant in their job group for years, despite achieving higher qualifications and providing exemplary service.
TSC officials allegedly attributed the issues to budgetary limitations and delays in internal vetting yet committed to unveiling a detailed plan by the end of the current term.
The discussion also explored the potential for reviewing the existing promotion framework to enhance inclusivity and transparency.
Although no formal agreement was established, sources characterized the discussions as โtense but promising,โ with both parties agreeing to reconvene in a fortnight.
This meeting occurs amidst rising pressure from teachersโ unions and threats of industrial action if the promotion deadlock is not promptly addressed.
How TSC Promotions Were Allocated
Machakos County recorded the highest number of teacher promotions (690), while Garissa County saw the lowest (303) in the most recent exercise, which was rejected by the National Assembly.
An analysis of the promotion data from the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) indicates that the positions were allocated with slight differences across the counties, regardless of the size or number of applicants in each county.
The list, provided to the Committee on Education of the National Assembly, details the number of vacancies available across the various job grades and the distribution to each county.
Nonetheless, the MPs dismissed the list last week and granted the TSC until Thursday of next week to present a detailed explanation of the promotion criteria used.
On April 2, 2025, the commission released the list of 25,252 teachers whose applications for various promotion positions were successful.
However, the list provoked immediate backlash from education stakeholders, with some MPs and teacher unions rejecting it due to claims of unfairness.
The Education Committee, chaired by Julius Melly (Tinderet, UDA), accused the TSC of employing an unclear promotion criterion and failing to maintain principles of equity.
They contended that the promotions disproportionately benefited certain regions, neglecting deserving candidates in other areas. Mr. Melly questioned the rationale behind what seemed to be a uniform distribution of promotions across counties, arguing that it diverged from previous practices and overlooked population dynamics.
โHow do you promote someone three times in a row while others have been stuck in one job group for over a decade? โ Mr. Melly asked. Mr. Melly noted that some teachers had received numerous promotions within a short timeframe, sidelining other deserving individuals with greater experience.
On Friday, he informed this reporter that the committee will look into instances of multiple promotions of newly hired teachers at the cost of others who have been shortlisted, interviewed but never advanced over the years.
The MPs are seeking information that reflects the number of years teachers have served in specific job grades before receiving promotions. While addressing the Committee on Education, TSC Chief Executive Officer Nancy Macharia defended the process, claiming it was legally justified and decentralised to guarantee regional representation.
โAligning promotion policies with legal and regulatory frameworks: The promotion process is in strict compliance with 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,โ she stated.
Teachersโ unions insisted that the commission retract the published list of promoted teachers, pointing to an inequitable distribution of opportunities across counties.
However, in its justification, the TSC presented data illustrating the figures for common cadre promotions and those advanced under the affirmative action for the 2024 โ 2025 Financial Year, where 5,291 teachers were promoted throughout all 47 counties. For instance, the leading counties that benefited from the programme are Isiolo (282), Lamu (280), and Mandera (270). Counties that received the fewest promotions under the programme include Kiambu (46), Nairobi and Murangโa (63 each), Elgeyo Marakwet and Laikipia (64 each).
The promotions cover nine distinct grades, from C2 to D5. The highest number of promotions took place within grades C4 and C5, which saw 8,508 and 5,425 teachers promoted respectively. This was succeeded by 4,971 to grade C3, 2,519 to D1, 1,445 to C2, and 1,410 to D3.
The senior executive levels, although lesser in number, witnessed 799 teachers promoted to D2, 128 to D4, and 47 to D5, indicating progress in bolstering senior leadership in schools. The acting Secretary General of the Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (Kuppet) Moses Nthurima has critiqued the TSC for what he describes as unfair distribution and promotion of teachers across counties.
โCertain regions have been disadvantaged. If the 25,000 slots were not allocated proportionally according to the number of teachers per county, it implies that counties with larger teacher populations are suffering. You can envision those individuals who have stagnated for years being left behind. While in some counties, teachers who have served for only six months were promoted, in others, those who have been in service for over ten years were overlooked,โ he expressed to news reporters.
