Why TSC should end prolonged acting appointments in school leadership

The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) deserves credit for its continued efforts to promote teachers, strengthen professional standards and manage Kenya’s evolving education system. But one difficult question now demands attention: Is it fair to hold heads of institutions, deputy heads, senior teachers and heads of department fully accountable for school performance while some continue serving in acting or unconfirmed positions without the certainty, authority and professional security that substantive appointments provide?

These teachers are expected to supervise colleagues, implement Competency-Based Education (CBE), manage institutional affairs, enforce discipline and deliver results. Yet prolonged uncertainty over their appointments can undermine their confidence, weaken their authority and expose them to unfair treatment.

The issue is not whether TSC has done enough in the past, but whether it can build on its achievements by ensuring that responsibility comes with recognition, authority comes with security, and accountability is matched by fair treatment.

A teacher entrusted with running an institution should not have to wonder indefinitely whether the system recognises the very responsibility it expects them to discharge.

This is why TSC should consider a comprehensive framework for substantive appointments covering heads of institutions, deputy heads, senior teachers and heads of department. Such a reform would not erase the Commission’s achievements; it would build on them by addressing a critical question of fairness, professional confidence and effective school leadership.

Running a school has become increasingly demanding. Heads of institutions oversee instructional leadership, financial accountability, staff management, learner welfare, infrastructure, discipline, parental engagement and compliance with government policies.

Deputy heads help coordinate daily school operations, supervise teaching and learning, support discipline and ensure continuity in institutional management.

Senior teachers and heads of department also perform essential functions. They mentor colleagues, coordinate subject areas, monitor curriculum coverage, review assessments and help translate education policies into classroom practice.

These are not merely ceremonial responsibilities. They require time, expertise, professional judgement and accountability.

TSC has made efforts to establish career structures and provide promotion opportunities for teachers. The next logical step would be to examine whether existing arrangements adequately recognise the different layers of responsibility within learning institutions.

A teacher entrusted with substantial leadership duties should have a clearly defined professional position, a formal job description and an appropriate pathway for advancement.

One of the strongest arguments for substantive appointments is the need to enhance professional confidence among teachers entrusted with administrative responsibilities while protecting them from possible exploitation arising from prolonged uncertainty over their positions.

In some institutions, teachers may be assigned administrative responsibilities through acting appointments or other interim arrangements to ensure that school operations continue smoothly. Such arrangements can be necessary, particularly when vacancies arise unexpectedly. However, difficulties emerge when uncertainty over the appointment persists for an extended period.

An administrator whose position has not been substantively confirmed may face uncertainty over tenure, authority, professional recognition and career progression. The situation can become particularly challenging when the individual is expected to make difficult decisions involving staff discipline, curriculum supervision, institutional planning and implementation of official directives.

Other staff members may also question the administrator’s authority when appointment arrangements are unclear. This can weaken leadership, create unnecessary tensions and undermine the smooth running of an institution.

It is difficult to demand the full accountability of an office holder while leaving the substantive status, authority and professional security of that office uncertain.

The concern is not that every acting appointment amounts to exploitation. Acting arrangements have a legitimate role in maintaining continuity. The problem arises when teachers continue carrying substantial responsibilities without clear timelines, transparent appointment procedures or adequate recognition under the applicable employment framework.

TSC should therefore establish clear guidelines governing acting appointments, including written terms, defined responsibilities, reasonable timelines for filling established vacancies and transparent procedures for substantive appointment.

Where the applicable rules provide for acting allowances or other benefits, eligible teachers should receive them in accordance with the relevant provisions.

Teachers should not be left indefinitely in professional uncertainty because administrative processes remain incomplete.

The implementation of CBE has increased the importance of collaboration, continuous assessment, learner-centred teaching, parental involvement and the monitoring of individual learner progress.

These responsibilities cannot be left to classroom teachers working in isolation. They require coordination and leadership at different levels of the institution.

Heads of department can help ensure consistency in teaching approaches and assessment practices. Senior teachers can support mentorship and professional development, while deputy heads can coordinate daily implementation and address operational challenges.

Substantive appointments would provide an opportunity to align institutional leadership structures with the actual demands of the curriculum.

For example, a head of department should have a clearly defined mandate to coordinate teachers, monitor curriculum implementation and evaluate departmental performance. A deputy head should have specified operational responsibilities, while the principal or headteacher retains overall institutional accountability.

Such arrangements would reduce overlapping duties, strengthen reporting structures and make it easier to assess whether institutional objectives are being achieved.

As schools adapt to the demands of junior and senior school under the new education framework, TSC should examine whether existing leadership structures are sufficient to support effective curriculum implementation.

Teachers who undertake additional administrative responsibilities often have to balance leadership duties with their normal classroom workload.

A deputy head may be required to supervise teachers, handle disciplinary matters, prepare reports and coordinate daily operations while remaining responsible for teaching. Similarly, a head of department may spend considerable time organising assessments, monitoring curriculum coverage and mentoring colleagues.

Such responsibilities demand additional effort and professional competence.

A substantive appointment framework would help establish a transparent relationship between responsibility, job grade and remuneration. It would also provide an opportunity to review whether existing structures adequately recognise the demands of different leadership positions.

This does not mean that every additional duty must automatically attract a salary increase. Rather, TSC should establish a structured system in which appointments, job descriptions, grades and applicable allowances correspond to the responsibilities attached to each position.

Financial constraints are real, and the Commission must operate within approved public expenditure limits. Nevertheless, financial prudence should not prevent a review of whether the distribution of responsibilities and professional recognition is fair.

The objective should be to ensure that teachers are not routinely expected to carry increasingly demanding leadership duties without clear terms governing their roles and professional advancement.

Career progression is an important consideration in the teaching profession. Teachers need to see that experience, competence, leadership ability and professional development can lead to recognised advancement.

TSC has an opportunity to strengthen its existing promotion framework by making school leadership a more deliberate part of career development.

A coherent structure could recognise different levels of responsibility, including:

Senior teacher: Mentorship, instructional support and professional guidance.

Head of department: Coordination of departmental teaching, assessment and performance.

Deputy head of institution: Operational management, staff coordination and support for the head of institution.

Head of institution: Overall leadership, administration, accountability and strategic direction.

These positions should have clearly defined entry requirements, job descriptions, reporting lines, performance expectations and appropriate grades or allowances.

The framework should also recognise differences between primary schools, junior schools, senior schools and institutions of varying sizes. A small school may not require the same number of administrative positions as a large institution with many learners and teachers.

Appointments should remain merit-based, taking into account qualifications, experience, professional competence, performance and the availability of approved positions.

Substantive appointment should not become an automatic reward for years of service. It should be a transparent process through which teachers can demonstrate their suitability for the responsibilities involved.

Clear appointments would also strengthen institutional accountability.

When responsibilities are formally defined, it becomes easier to assess performance, identify weaknesses and determine where additional support is required.

A head of department, for example, could be assessed on curriculum coordination, teacher collaboration, assessment practices and the quality of departmental records. Deputy heads could be evaluated against their assigned operational duties, while heads of institutions would remain accountable for overall school management and performance.

Such assessments must be fair and take account of factors beyond an individual teacher’s control, including staffing shortages, infrastructure limitations, learner needs and delays in funding.

The purpose should be to improve professional practice rather than punish teachers for systemic challenges.

By establishing clear lines of authority and accountability, TSC would strengthen its existing teacher-management systems and help ensure that leadership responsibilities translate into better outcomes for learners.

Ending prolonged acting arrangements through sustainable reforms

Acting appointments can provide valuable experience and maintain continuity when a vacancy arises. However, they should not become a permanent substitute for transparent substantive appointment procedures.

TSC should consider establishing reasonable timelines for filling approved vacancies, communicating the terms of acting appointments and ensuring that eligible teachers have a fair opportunity to compete for substantive positions.

Where recruitment or confirmation is delayed, the Commission should provide clear communication on the reasons and the expected next steps.

This would protect both the employer and the teacher by reducing ambiguity and ensuring that institutional leadership is governed by clear, predictable rules.

It would also help prevent situations in which teachers continue performing higher-level duties without knowing whether or when their positions will be formally confirmed.

One of the main challenges facing the proposal is the cost of establishing additional substantive positions and financing any associated salary adjustments.

TSC would need to undertake a staffing and financial assessment to determine the number of positions required, the available wage bill and the implications for different categories of institutions.

Implementation could be phased, beginning with schools that have the greatest management needs and sufficient enrolment to justify additional leadership positions.

The Commission could also review existing job structures and deployment arrangements to identify opportunities for improving efficiency without creating unnecessary administrative layers.

Consultation with teacher unions, the Ministry of Education, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission where applicable, and the National Treasury would be important in developing a sustainable framework.

Such an approach would demonstrate that recognising teachers’ leadership responsibilities and maintaining responsible public expenditure are compatible objectives.

It is important to acknowledge the complex environment in which TSC operates. The Commission must manage a large teaching workforce while addressing competing demands for recruitment, promotion, remuneration, equitable deployment and professional development.

It has continued to play a central role in teacher management despite these competing pressures. Any proposal for additional reforms should therefore build on the systems already established rather than disregard the progress achieved.

A comprehensive review of substantive leadership appointments would be a practical next step. It should examine existing positions, acting arrangements, job descriptions, staffing establishments, promotion criteria and the financial implications of possible changes.

The review should involve teachers, school administrators, unions and relevant government institutions to ensure that the resulting policy reflects realities on the ground.

The aim would not be to create positions for their own sake. It would be to ensure that every leadership position is justified by institutional needs, supported by clear responsibilities and governed by fair appointment procedures.

TSC deserves credit for its continued efforts to manage Kenya’s teaching workforce, maintain professional standards and provide opportunities for career progression. Yet effective teacher management requires continuous review as the demands placed on schools change.

Substantive appointments for heads of institutions, deputy heads, senior teachers and heads of department would offer an opportunity to strengthen professional confidence, protect teachers from prolonged uncertainty, clarify authority and accountability, and establish more predictable career pathways.

The reform should be financially sustainable, merit-based and responsive to the different needs of learning institutions.

Ultimately, the case is not simply about titles, promotions or salaries. It is about building a professional system in which responsibility is matched by recognition, authority is supported by clear appointment terms, and accountability is exercised within a transparent framework.