- TSC has directed County Directors to stop appointing officers to substantive positions and to instead report vacancies to headquarters for competitive recruitment.
- Evelyn Mitei has issued the directive dated August 18, 2026, following reports of County Directors placing officers in acting Sub-County Director roles.
- The directive could restore fairness for teachers who have long felt overlooked for administrative positions despite years of experience.
The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) has drawn a firm line on appointments within its field administration, directing County Directors to immediately stop appointing officers to established substantive positions and instead report vacancies to Commission headquarters for competitive recruitment.
In a directive dated August 18, 2026, TSC Acting Commission Secretary and Chief Executive Officer Evelyn Mitei made it clear that County Directors do not have the authority to appoint officers to substantive positions, whether on an acting, temporary or any other basis. Where a substantive vacancy arises, it must instead be reported to headquarters for the prescribed recruitment, selection and appointment process. The Commission has also directed County Directors to review communications already issued on such appointments and take corrective action where irregular arrangements are identified.
For thousands of teachers who have watched colleagues rise into administrative positions while they remain in the classroom despite years of experience and professional development, the directive could signal the beginning of a new chapter—one in which merit, competence and professional suitability take greater precedence over local discretion and competing interests, and substantive appointments are determined through the Commission’s established structures rather than by who happens to have the strongest voice at the county level.
ALSO READ:
TSC bars County Directors from making acting appointments, declares irregular roles ‘null and void’
Why TSC Has Drawn the Line
According to the directive, some County Directors had been issuing letters placing officers in acting capacities in vacant positions, particularly Sub-County Director positions, while Curriculum Support Officers and Sub-County Human Resource Officers had in some instances been assigned responsibilities associated with vacant offices.
TSC has now drawn a crucial distinction between assigning duties temporarily and appointing someone to a substantive position. An officer may be required to perform certain functions to ensure continuity of service when an office falls vacant, but that assignment cannot be converted into an appointment. When a substantive position becomes vacant, whether through retirement, resignation, transfer, promotion, death or another circumstance, the vacancy should be reported to headquarters, which then determines how it will be competitively filled—an important shift that places substantive appointments firmly within the Commission’s national human-resource framework.
The Bigger Issue Is Not the Acting Letter—It Is Fairness
The debate surrounding the directive should not be reduced to whether a County Director can sign an acting letter. The deeper question is whether teachers across the country have been enjoying a sufficiently fair and transparent opportunity to compete for leadership positions. There are highly qualified and experienced teachers in Kenya who have spent many years in classrooms, leading departments, mentoring colleagues and managing school programmes, some with postgraduate qualifications and decades of experience, yet many have never been considered for administrative positions, a reality that has understandably generated frustration. The issue is not that every person appointed in the past was undeserving; it is whether every qualified teacher was given a genuine opportunity to compete. That is where TSC’s latest directive becomes particularly significant.
Varsities brace for curriculum overhaul as draft CBE framework targets smaller classes, practical assessment
When a Former Pupil Returns to Administer the Teacher Who Taught Them
Perhaps one of the most emotionally charged concerns raised by some teachers is the experience of seeing a former pupil—someone they taught only recently and who, in their view, has not accumulated comparable professional credentials or experience—return to the institution in an administrative capacity and end up supervising them. For some teachers, this creates a profound professional dilemma: how did someone they were teaching only a short while ago become their administrator, and through what competitive process was that decision reached?
Again, the issue should not be reduced to age. A former pupil can eventually become a highly qualified professional and, if they meet the requirements and demonstrate superior leadership competence, legitimately become a teacher or administrator, and seniority should not automatically guarantee promotion either. The concern arises when a teacher believes the person placed above them did not pass through a transparent, merit-based appointment process. Such an appointment should be justifiable on objective professional grounds—not because the person was available, not because someone preferred them, not because of political or community pressure, but because they were demonstrably suitable for the position.
A related scenario plays out where relatively junior teachers administer colleagues who have served far longer. This is not automatically evidence of wrongdoing, since a younger or less experienced teacher can genuinely be the better leader, but where a significantly junior officer is placed in charge of much more experienced colleagues, the process should be transparent enough to explain why. The question should not be “Why was a junior teacher appointed?” but “What professional criteria made this person the most suitable candidate?”
Grade 10 placement: What parents and learners must know as 2026 Senior School selection opens
Experience Must Count—Without Becoming an Automatic Entitlement
There is an important balance to maintain. A teacher who has served for 20 or 30 years should not automatically assume that every younger candidate is less capable, since leadership is about competence, not simply age. But years of experience should not be brushed aside either—a teacher who has spent decades in the classroom, mentored generations of learners and built deep institutional knowledge deserves to know that experience will count when administrative appointments are made. The answer, therefore, is not seniority versus youth, but merit plus professional suitability.
The Uncomfortable Question of Parents, Communities and Politicians
Another sensitive issue surrounding some appointments is the perception that decisions have at times been influenced by what parents, communities or politicians wanted, rather than being determined exclusively by professional criteria. These groups all have legitimate interests in education, but none should determine who gets appointed to an established professional position within TSC. A school leadership position is not a political reward, a community entitlement, or a bargaining chip between competing local interests—the candidate should be selected because professional evidence demonstrates that they are the most suitable person for the job. That is one of the strongest arguments for TSC headquarters retaining control of substantive appointments.
Why TSC Headquarters Should Make Substantive Appointments
The Commission deserves credit for recognising that the appointment system needed tightening. The directive indicates that TSC is not prepared to allow temporary arrangements to become an alternative route to substantive appointments—an important stance, since a national institution cannot maintain credibility if established positions can effectively be filled outside the prescribed recruitment framework. For teachers who have previously felt overlooked, the message should be encouraging: the door to competition should remain open. That does not guarantee anyone promotion; it guarantees something more fundamental—a fair opportunity to compete.
There are compelling reasons for keeping substantive appointments at headquarters: it promotes national consistency, strengthens accountability, reduces local pressures and perceptions of partiality, gives qualified teachers a broader opportunity to compete, and reinforces the principle that TSC—not individual local interests—is responsible for managing Kenya’s teaching workforce. Centralisation, however, must be accompanied by transparency; TSC should not simply move power from counties to headquarters, but build a system that is demonstrably more professional.
Acting Should Not Become a Shortcut to Permanent Appointment
There is nothing inherently wrong with acting arrangements. Institutions cannot stop functioning because an officer has retired, transferred or left service—someone must keep the office running. The problem begins when an acting arrangement becomes prolonged or creates the perception that the substantive position has already been allocated. An officer who acts gains valuable experience, but that experience should not automatically become a ticket to permanent appointment; otherwise, teachers who were never given the chance to act may find themselves competing against someone who already enjoys an institutional advantage. The principle should remain clear: assignment of duties is temporary; substantive appointment is competitive.
ALSO READ:
High Court suspends TSC circular on teachers’ social media conduct
A Chance to Restore Professional Dignity
At its heart, this debate is about professional dignity. Teachers want to believe that their qualifications matter, that their experience counts, and that leadership opportunities are accessible. They want to know that the person eventually appointed above them has earned the position through a credible process. A teacher should not wake up one morning and discover that someone they recently taught is now their administrator without understanding how that appointment was reached, just as the former pupil should not be denied an opportunity simply because they were once a learner. The solution is transparency: let everyone compete, let everyone be assessed, let merit decide—while stakeholder participation stops short of professional appointment authority, which remains with TSC.
TSC Must Now Prove That the New System Will Work
Centralising substantive appointments is only the first step. TSC must now ensure the process is rational, objective, transparent and timely: vacancies reported promptly, eligible candidates given a genuine opportunity to apply, criteria kept clear, and candidates assessed consistently, without temporary arrangements quietly becoming permanent. The system should let qualifications, experience, performance and leadership ability count, while the final decision emerges from a transparent, competitive process open to every teacher, whether in a remote school or a major urban institution, whether they have decades of experience or have never acted in a senior office. Nobody should receive a substantive appointment merely because of who they know or what a community or politician prefers.
The Real Meaning of the TSC Directive
The August 18 directive is therefore not simply about County Directors losing the power to appoint. It is about restoring the principle that professional appointments in a national teaching service should be made through professional systems—leaving parents to demand quality, communities to demand accountability, and politicians to advocate for education, while substantive appointments remain with the institution mandated to make them, through a process that is rational, objective, transparent and firmly anchored in merit.
For teachers who have long complained about unequal opportunities, this could be the beginning of a much-needed reset. TSC has identified the problem; now the profession will be watching to see whether the Commission follows through with a recruitment system that truly rewards competence and gives qualified teachers an equal opportunity to rise. If TSC delivers on that promise, the directive by Acting Commission Secretary and CEO Evelyn Mitei could become an important milestone in restoring confidence in teacher career progression. Because ultimately, teachers are not asking for favours—they are asking for a fair chance.
By Hillary Muhalya
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
>>> Click here to stay ahead with the latest national news.
