Confusion persists over zoning of teachers for hardship allowances

The issue of hardship allowances for teachers is back in Parliament, with MPs raising concerns over inconsistencies in classification.

MPs demanded clarification from the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) of hardship areas and the uniformity of allowances despite stark differences in working conditions across the country.

Hardship allowance was introduced to compensate public servants, including teachers, posted to areas with difficult living conditions such as poor infrastructure, harsh climatic conditions, insecurity, and lack of basic amenities.

The allowance, which is provided for under Regulation 91 of the Code of Regulations for Teachers (CORT) and the 2025–2029 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), is meant to incentivize teachers to take up postings in remote and insecure regions.

However, the process of determining which regions qualify as hardship zones remains contentious. The TSC administers allowances, but the responsibility of identifying hardship areas lies with the State Department for Public Service and Human Capital Development.

 The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), on its part, advises on the levels of allowances payable. This fragmented arrangement has fueled contradictions that continue to frustrate teachers.

Isiolo Woman Representative Momina Bonaya pressed the TSC on why Isiolo Municipality has not been reclassified under Cluster 3 for house allowance despite “clear eligibility” of listed schools.

In response, acting TSC CEO Everleen Mitei argued that teachers in Isiolo are already benefitting from an enhanced house allowance following the 2021–2025 CBA, which was reviewed in 2023 after advice from SRC.

“Teachers in Isiolo municipality are now earning an enhanced House Allowance under Cluster 3,” she said, maintaining that the terms are carried forward in the 2025–2029 CBA.

But MPs insist the hardship allowance regime remains unfair. In a TV interview, Githunguri MP Gathoni Wamuchomba accused the government of side-lining Parliament and unions in ongoing discussions over reclassification of hardship areas.

She referenced a 2019 inter-agency report that had recommended splitting hardship areas into “extreme” and “moderate” categories a move that would save the government an estimated Sh6 billion in allowances.

“Why were teachers paraded at State House when the same government has denied them allowances?” Wamuchomba asked.

“Over 118,000 teachers in 35 counties are affected. The budget is allocated by Parliament, not the presidency. Teachers should not be misled into celebrating while their benefits are under threat.”

Her remarks point to a deeper clash between political pronouncements and institutional processes.

While President William Ruto recently assured teachers that hardship allowances would not be reduced, unions argue the matter is yet to be conclusively settled.

Kenya Union of Post-Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) chairman Omboko Milemba defended the engagement with State House, saying the union had successfully pushed back against planned deductions.

““The teachers who went there were leaders and the hardship allowances was part of the memorandum we took there. We had gone to court against it and even the circular that was supposed to effect the reduction of areas of hardship had already been shelved,” Milemba said.

He added that the issue must be seen within the broader context of CBA financing. “The CBA was broken into two phases costing Sh30 billion. Already Sh8.6 billion has been spent, leaving Sh21.4 billion. Financing is a matter for Parliament, but the president has also been urging agencies to cost the agreements properly.”

The contradictions between different players Parliament, the unions, the SRC, the TSC, and the Ministry of Public Service have left teachers in limbo.

While unions claim victory in protecting allowances, MPs warn that reclassification may return through Parliament, potentially cutting benefits for thousands.

At the heart of the debate is whether hardship allowance should remain uniform across all hardship zones, regardless of the severity of conditions.

Critics argue that a teacher posted in Turkana faces far greater challenges than one in Nyandarua, yet both receive the same allowance.

 The Ministry of Public Service has initiated a review of hardship areas in line with socio-economic developments, raising expectations of a new “graduated model” of hardship pay.

Wamuchomba warned that until a harmonized framework is institutionalized, however, teachers will continue to face uncertainty.

“Matters of hardship should not be politicized. They must be handled transparently, through unions and Parliament, not backroom deals.”