Quiet firing is steadily gaining traction within private schools in Kenya and its rise says a great deal about the state of leadership, accountability and ethics in parts of the sector. Unlike overt dismissal, quiet firing is subtle, calculated and often disguised as “performance management” or “institutional restructuring.” In reality, it is a slow push toward the exit, engineered in a way that allows school owners and administrators to avoid difficult conversations, legal obligations and moral responsibility. It thrives most where power is concentrated, governance is weak, and fear is normalized.
Private schools, by their very nature, operate under immense financial and reputational pressure. Competition for learners is fierce, parents are increasingly demanding and margins are often thin. Instead of addressing systemic issues such as poor planning, unrealistic workloads, weak instructional leadership or inadequate teacher support, some school managers choose the easier path: make individual teachers the problem. Quiet firing becomes a convenient tool to shift blame downward while preserving the illusion of institutional excellence.
In many cases, the process begins with subtle changes. A teacher who once handled a class confidently is suddenly reassigned subjects outside their specialization. Another is removed from examination classes without explanation. Timetables are altered in ways that increase workload without commensurate support. Invitations to academic meetings stop coming. Professional development opportunities are quietly redirected to “favoured” staff. None of these actions is, on its own, a dismissal. Together, they send a loud and clear message: you are no longer wanted here.
Performance Improvement Plans have become a particularly powerful instrument of quiet firing in private schools. On paper, a PIP suggests support and growth. In practice, many are poorly designed, rushed and punitive. Targets are unrealistic, timelines are tight and mentorship is absent. Observations are frequent but feedback is vague and negative. When the teacher inevitably “fails” the plan, management can claim due process while having offered little genuine help. The teacher’s exit then appears self-inflicted.
ALSO READ:
Maseno School set to celebrate 120 years of academic and sporting excellence
Fear plays a central role in sustaining quiet firing. Many private school teachers in Kenya are not unionized. Contracts are short-term, renewal is discretionary and job security is fragile. Speaking up can easily lead to blacklisting or non-renewal. As a result, teachers endure humiliation, emotional exhaustion and professional erosion in silence. Some resign quietly to protect their dignity. Others stay, disengaged and demoralized, contributing to a culture of mediocrity and mistrust.
The damage caused by quiet firing extends far beyond the affected teacher. Learners suffer when experienced educators are sidelined or pushed out. Departments lose continuity. Remaining staff internalize the message that loyalty and excellence offer no protection. Innovation dies because people become risk-averse. Instead of healthy accountability, schools cultivate compliance. Over time, the institution becomes hollow, sustained more by branding and marketing than by pedagogical depth.
Quiet firing also exposes contradictions within private school leadership. Many institutions loudly market themselves as values-driven, child-centred and professional. Yet behind closed doors, they practice avoidance, intimidation and passive aggression. Leaders who cannot have honest conversations about performance resort to tactics that erode trust. In doing so, they reveal a lack of managerial competence. Strong leaders address underperformance directly, fairly, and humanely. Weak leaders outsource courage to systems and silence.
There is also a legal and ethical dimension that schools often ignore. While private schools have flexibility in employment, Kenyan labour laws still require fairness, clarity, and due process. Quiet firing may appear safer than direct termination, but it is not risk-free. Constructive dismissal claims arise when an employee can demonstrate that working conditions were deliberately made intolerable. Beyond legality, there is the moral question of what kind of institutions schools choose to be. Education is not just a business; it is a moral enterprise.
Ironically, quiet firing often backfires. Teachers who leave under such circumstances rarely do so quietly in the long term. Word spreads within professional networks. Reputations are built not only on KCSE or KPSEA results but on how staff are treated. Schools that normalize quiet firing struggle to attract and retain high-quality educators. They recycle the same problems, blaming individuals instead of fixing structures.
Addressing the rise of quiet firing requires courage from multiple actors. School owners must invest in leadership development, not just infrastructure. Head teachers and principals must learn how to manage performance with clarity, empathy and consistency. Boards should provide oversight that protects both institutional standards and human dignity. Teachers, where possible, must document processes, seek professional advice and support one another.
Quiet firing may feel expedient in the short term, but it is corrosive in the long run. It weakens schools from the inside, damages the profession, and ultimately undermines learner outcomes. Private schools in Kenya cannot claim to be centres of excellence while practicing managerial cowardice. How educators are treated when they struggle says more about a school’s values than any glossy brochure ever could.
By Ashford Kimani
Ashford teaches English and Literature in Gatundu North Sub-county and serves as Dean of Studies.
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
