- Hillary Muhalya argues that teachers’ legitimate investments should be distinguished from activities that undermine professional duties.
- Proposed changes to the TSC law raise questions about outside employment and conflicts of interest.
- Accountability should protect learners while applying consistent standards to private economic interests across public service.
Kenya’s latest debate over the regulation of teachers is moving beyond classrooms, salaries and professional conduct to a question touching the economic lives of hundreds of thousands of educators: how much freedom should a public servant have to earn income outside the job that pays the monthly salary?
The question has gained renewed attention in Parliament through the Teachers Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which proposes changes to the law governing teachers, including tighter provisions on professional conduct and discipline.
Among the provisions attracting attention is the proposal to treat engagement in other gainful employment by a teacher employed by the Teachers Service Commission as a disciplinary matter. The provision has consequently brought Kenya’s familiar “side-hustle” culture into the centre of a national policy debate.
But the issue is bigger than the phrase “side hustle”.
For teachers, it is about where professional responsibility ends and legitimate economic activity begins.
Professional duty and legitimate investment
A teacher’s salary has to stretch far beyond the classroom. It pays for food, housing, school fees, transport, medical expenses, family obligations, emergencies and, for many, preparation for retirement.
For some teachers, therefore, farming, poultry keeping, a small shop, writing, consultancy or transport investment is not an attempt to escape the classroom.
It is an attempt to make a living work.
That reality explains why proposed restrictions have generated anxiety.
A teacher who keeps cows may want to know whether farming constitutes other gainful employment. One who owns a shop may ask whether ownership itself is prohibited or whether the concern is actively running the business during official working hours. Another may have invested in a family enterprise and want to know whether that investment can become a disciplinary matter.
These are not trivial distinctions.
An investment is not necessarily a second job. Nor is earning additional income automatically the same thing as abandoning professional duty.
Teaching is a full-time professional responsibility. Lessons must be prepared and delivered, learners assessed, records maintained and school duties performed. Where a teacher runs a business during official hours, repeatedly arrives late, misses lessons or places commercial interests ahead of learners, accountability is justified.
The debate should therefore not be framed simply as teachers versus professionalism.
Teachers must be accountable.
The more difficult question is whether regulation can distinguish between professional misconduct, conflicting outside employment, active commercial management and legitimate investment.
That distinction is essential.
A teacher who owns livestock on a rural farm is not automatically neglecting learners. A teacher who owns shares in a company is not necessarily working another job. A teacher whose family owns a business is not automatically an employee of that business.
At the same time, a teacher who spends official working hours running a commercial enterprise cannot invoke “side hustle” as a shield against accountability.
The problem is not necessarily that an individual earns additional income.
The problem arises when private economic interests collide with public duty.
The mirror must face everyone
And that is where the policy debate becomes much bigger than teachers.
“The monkey doesn’t see its backside.”
The proverb captures the tendency to identify and condemn the shortcomings of others while failing to examine one’s own.
Before a teacher is told to abandon a poultry project, small farm, shop or other enterprise, Kenyans may reasonably ask how similar principles are applied across the wider public-service system.
What happens when politicians, senior public officials or other powerful office-holders have business interests?
The question is not whether anyone should be allowed to break conflict-of-interest or public-integrity rules.
It is whether the rules should be applied consistently.
If commercial interests compromise public duty, the relevant standard should be determined by the conflict and the conduct involved—not simply by whether the person occupies a classroom, a government office or a seat in Parliament.
There is another familiar warning: “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”
It does not mean teachers should escape accountability.
It means those demanding strict standards from others should also be prepared to subject themselves to scrutiny.
This is particularly important because the proposed legislation is not merely about side hustles. It seeks a broader recalibration of teacher discipline and professional standards.
That means the policy conversation should also be about clarity, due process and the rights of teachers facing disciplinary action.
Teachers should know precisely what conduct is prohibited.
They should know what must be declared.
They should know what constitutes a conflict of interest.
They should know whether passive investments are treated differently from active employment.
They should know whether farming is regarded differently from operating a shop.
And they should know what evidence is required before an economic activity becomes a disciplinary matter.
Without such clarity, regulation can create uncertainty rather than professionalism.
There is also an economic reality that policymakers cannot wish away.
When workers seek additional income, it can reflect genuine household financial pressures. Restricting supplementary economic activity may address concerns about divided attention, but it does not eliminate the financial pressures that pushed people towards additional income in the first place.
That does not justify neglect of duty.
A teacher cannot use financial pressure to justify abandoning learners or conducting private business during official working hours.
But neither should every attempt to improve household income automatically be treated as evidence of professional disloyalty.
The better policy conversation is therefore about protecting the classroom without unnecessarily treating legitimate economic activity as professional misconduct.
A teacher who runs a business during teaching hours should be accountable.
A teacher who repeatedly misses lessons because of a private enterprise should be accountable.
A teacher whose commercial interests create a genuine conflict of interest should disclose it and comply with the applicable rules.
But an investment that does none of these things should not automatically be confused with professional misconduct.
Clarity before disciplinary action
This is where the proposed law deserves careful public scrutiny.
A good regulatory framework should make the line visible rather than leave teachers guessing where it lies.
It should protect learners without treating every investment as competing employment.
It should strengthen professionalism without ignoring the economic circumstances of public servants.
And it should establish accountability without creating a double standard.
The issue also extends beyond the teaching profession.
If Kenya is serious about conflict of interest, integrity and public accountability, the conversation cannot end with teachers. The public will naturally expect scrutiny of private economic interests throughout the public-service system, including among people with considerably greater political influence and economic power.
Otherwise, a policy intended to strengthen integrity could create the perception that the smallest economic activities are being subjected to intense scrutiny while larger interests elsewhere receive less attention.
That would weaken confidence in the rules themselves.
The side-hustle debate should therefore become an opportunity to establish a clearer national framework governing public service and private economic interests.
Teachers should remain teachers during official working hours.
Learners should not lose instructional time because of private commercial interests.
But teachers should also be able to understand exactly what the law regards as prohibited employment, legitimate investment and conflict of interest.
The proposed provision builds on existing restrictions. The 2015 Code of Conduct and Ethics for Teachers already prohibits private business during official working hours and other gainful employment for teachers serving full time. The debate should therefore examine both the existing rules and what the Bill would change.
And because the 2026 Bill is still before Parliament rather than an enacted law, the public debate should focus not only on what it seeks to regulate but also on whether its language provides sufficient clarity about the economic activities that could fall within its disciplinary framework.
That distinction is important.
The question is not whether teachers should be accountable.
They should.
The question is whether accountability should be built around actual neglect of duty and genuine conflicts of interest, rather than a blanket suspicion of every income-generating activity.
The issue is ultimately bigger than a teacher selling eggs, keeping cows, running a shop or investing in transport.
It is about where Kenya draws the line between public duty and private economic life—and whether that line is drawn consistently.
Professionalism must be protected.
Learners must come first.
Teachers must perform the work they are paid to do.
But accountability becomes more credible when the mirror faces everyone—from the classroom to the corridors of power.
READ ALSO: MP Nabulindo strengthens digital learning initiative with new computer laboratory at Koyonzo Girls’
The teacher can be held to account.
So should everyone else.
By Hillary Muhalya
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
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
