A Win or Too Little? The Divided Reaction to Kenya’s New Teachers’ Deal

If you’ve spoken to a teacher in Kenya this week, you’ve likely encountered a whirlwind of emotions. Some are celebrating what they consider a hard-fought victory, while others are deeply disappointed, dismissing the promised raise as nothing more than a drop in the ocean. This division stems from the recently signed 2025–2029 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Kenya National Union of Teachers (Knut) and the Teachers Service Commission (TSC). The deal, which will guide the pay and welfare of teachers for the next four years, has already stirred heated debate in staffrooms, union meetings, and on social media.

So, who is right? Is the new deal a win or a failure? As with most complex negotiations, the truth lies not in a simple headline but in the nuanced details of the agreement.

The Official Line: A Strategic Victory in Tough Times

Knut Secretary-General Collins Oyuu has emerged as the leading defender of the new CBA. Speaking at the Knut Eldoret West branch AGM, he framed the outcome as a significant achievement when weighed against Kenya’s economic climate. His argument rests on two main pillars.

First, he reminded teachers of the ghost of CBAs past. The 2021–2025 CBA produced zero monetary increase due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the devastating economic fallout that followed. Teachers then only received non-monetary benefits, including paternity and maternity leave. From this perspective, any salary increment in the 2025 deal is a step forward.

Second, Oyuu emphasized that the CBA should not be reduced to salary figures alone. He argued that the agreement is a two-part package—one part monetary, the other non-monetary. The monetary component includes progressive salary increases spread across four years, while the non-monetary side includes reforms that could reshape the teaching profession in Kenya for decades. Among these are career progression guidelines, a job evaluation framework to ensure promotions are merit-based, guaranteed hardship allowances for those working in arid and remote areas, and retention of the Minet medical insurance cover, which teachers prefer over the newly proposed Social Health Authority.

For the union leadership, therefore, this deal is a pragmatic win. It secures both structural reforms and a salary concession from a government known for its tight purse strings.

The Grassroots Reality: “Less than KSh 500 is an Insult”

Despite these assurances, many teachers at the grassroots feel shortchanged. Their frustrations are anchored in the cost of living crisis that has gripped the country. Reports that some teachers will see monthly increments of less than KSh 500 have sparked outrage. For them, the increment is symbolic rather than substantive, an amount that barely buys a week’s supply of unga or offsets rising electricity bills.

Teachers argue that a raise which doesn’t at least keep pace with inflation is effectively a pay cut in real terms. The daily struggle to balance stagnant wages against soaring food, fuel, and housing prices leaves many teachers feeling that the union has failed to deliver a deal that addresses today’s harsh realities.

This sense of betrayal has also deepened a trust deficit between union leadership and members. Many educators feel Knut is too cozy with TSC and the government, out of touch with the financial hardships teachers face daily. This disillusionment has sparked conversations on whether the union still genuinely represents the rank-and-file teacher.

Linking Back: The Long Road of Negotiations

This is not the first time the CBA has triggered division. In fact, earlier this year, teachers reacted strongly to TSC’s initial proposals. As highlighted in this article on the CBA offer, lower cadre teachers were promised up to a 26% salary increase, while top earners received a mere 5%. The disparity created a wedge among teachers, with some feeling favored while others were left out.

Further, as analyzed in the breakdown of five wins and three missed opportunities, the deal contained undeniable gains but also glaring gaps, especially regarding housing and allowances.

Even after the signing, Knut has hinted that the battle is not over. The union has vowed to return to the negotiation table before 2029 to push for more improvements, as seen in this earlier report. This shows that while the current CBA is binding, the lobbying and pressure for adjustments remain alive.

Analysis: A Clash of Perspectives

This situation reveals the classic clash between top-down leadership strategy and bottom-up economic survival.

On one hand, Knut leadership is playing the long-term strategic game. They understand that they are negotiating with a powerful government constrained by competing budgetary needs. By securing structural reforms and protections like hardship allowances, they argue that the deal future-proofs the teaching profession.

On the other hand, the rank-and-file teacher is focused on immediate economic relief. Promises of fairer promotions in the future don’t buy food today. Their measure of success is simple: how much money lands in their bank account every month. Anything less than a meaningful increase in take-home pay feels like failure.

Both perspectives carry weight. The leadership may indeed have extracted the best possible deal in a difficult economic environment. But teachers’ frustrations are also legitimate—the widening gap between their stagnant pay and the skyrocketing cost of living makes it hard to celebrate long-term reforms.

What’s Next? The Road Ahead for Teachers

The ink on the agreement is dry, but the story is far from over. Teachers will now closely watch implementation.

First, the career progression guidelines must be real, not just promises on paper. If teachers see tangible promotions and fair job evaluations, confidence in the deal will grow. If not, resentment will deepen.

Second, Knut must engage in a massive PR campaign to explain the long-term benefits of the CBA in simple, relatable terms. Teachers need to see exactly how these reforms will impact their daily lives. Otherwise, the gap between leadership rhetoric and lived reality will only widen.

Third, the union must confront its credibility crisis. Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. Failure to reconnect with members could weaken Knut’s bargaining power in future negotiations and even fuel internal divisions.

Finally, the government must recognize that teachers are not just civil servants—they are the backbone of Kenya’s education system. Failure to adequately invest in their welfare risks eroding morale, undermining quality, and ultimately hurting learners.

The Bigger Picture: Education and Equity

The teachers’ deal must also be seen in the broader national context. Kenya faces enormous fiscal pressures, from public debt repayment to funding health reforms and infrastructure projects. But teachers argue that their sacrifices during the Covid-19 years, when they accepted a “zero increment” CBA, should now be compensated with dignity.

Moreover, inequities persist. Urban teachers often find ways to supplement their income, while rural teachers, especially those in hardship zones, remain trapped in cycles of poverty. The CBA’s protection of hardship allowances is critical, but the government must go further in addressing these disparities.

Conclusion: A Compromise, Not a Celebration

The 2025–2029 CBA is neither an outright victory nor a total failure. It is a compromise deal, reflective of Kenya’s strained economy and the complex art of negotiation. It offers long-term structural gains for the teaching profession but falls short of providing immediate, meaningful financial relief for individual teachers.

To call it a win is to ignore the frustrations of teachers who cannot meet their daily needs. To call it a failure is to dismiss the reforms that could reshape teaching for the better. The truth lies in between: this is a deal that acknowledges progress but highlights how far Kenya still has to go in valuing its educators.

The next four years will reveal whether the reforms deliver real benefits or whether teachers’ disappointment lingers until 2029. For now, the question remains open: is this deal truly a win, or just too little, too late?