A teacher in classroom
The TSC Code of Conduct on professional boundaries exists not to restrict teachers but to protect the profession’s most fundamental asset: trust
By Ashford Kimani
Teaching is among the noblest of professions precisely because it places educators in a position of extraordinary trust. Parents hand their children to teachers expecting knowledge, guidance, discipline and protection. The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) recognises that responsibility in its Code of Regulations, and nowhere more forcefully than in Regulation 22, which sets out clear standards governing the conduct of teachers towards learners.
The regulation opens without ambiguity: a teacher shall not engage in any sexual activity whatsoever with a learner, regardless of whether the learner appears to consent. That framing is deliberate. A learner cannot legally or ethically consent to a sexual relationship with a teacher. The power imbalance is structural — teachers hold authority over learners through assessment, discipline, mentorship and academic influence — and any romantic or sexual involvement is, by definition, an abuse of that authority. The regulation closes the door on every conceivable justification.
Beyond the outright prohibition on sexual activity, the regulation forbids teachers from making requests for sexual favours or placing any pressure on learners for sexual activity. Such pressure need not be explicit. It may take the form of promises — better grades, favourable treatment, gifts or opportunities — or threats of punishment, poor academic results or disciplinary action if a learner refuses. Whatever form it takes, using professional authority to seek sexual favours constitutes gross misconduct and a criminal offence.
Regulation 22 also prohibits flirting with learners. Some educators have mistakenly treated flirting as harmless because it stops short of physical contact. It is not. Suggestive remarks, inappropriate compliments, romantic messages or unnecessary physical closeness can destabilise a learner’s sense of safety and blur the professional boundaries that must remain clear at all times. Discomfort does not require a dramatic incident to be real.
The regulation further provides that teachers should never send learners to their personal residences for any reason. The intention behind such a visit is beside the point. Professional interactions between teachers and learners must take place in approved school environments or under officially sanctioned activities where accountability and transparency can be maintained. Good intentions are not a substitute for proper procedure.
On coercion, the regulation is equally direct. Teachers are forbidden from inducing, threatening or intimidating learners — particularly in connection with their academic performance — in exchange for sexual relations. Marks, recommendations and disciplinary decisions must always reflect merit, fairness and integrity. Academic authority is not a bargaining tool.
The regulation also makes explicit what might seem obvious but is often neglected: every teacher has a legal and moral obligation to report suspected or confirmed abuse through the appropriate channels. Remaining silent, discouraging a victim from coming forward, destroying evidence or shielding a perpetrator amounts to complicity. Schools become safe spaces only when every member of staff actively participates in protecting children.
Learner safety is also addressed at the moment of dismissal. Teachers should not release learners before notifying parents or guardians, and should not send learners home outside prescribed hours except in genuine emergencies. A school’s duty of care does not end at the classroom door. Sending a child away unexpectedly may expose them to accidents, violence or other foreseeable dangers.
Regulation 23 extends these standards beyond the classroom. Teachers are prohibited from sexually harassing colleagues or members of the public. Sexual harassment encompasses unwelcome sexual advances, repeated requests for dates or sexual favours, inappropriate physical contact, offensive remarks, sexually suggestive messages and any conduct that creates a hostile environment. Persistence after rejection — continuing behaviour that has been made unwelcome — is itself a violation. Consent must be voluntary and continuous; it is not a box ticked once and carried forward indefinitely.
The consequences of breaching these regulations are severe and career-ending. A teacher found guilty may face interdiction, dismissal, deregistration by the TSC, criminal prosecution, imprisonment and lasting reputational damage. Years of dedicated service can be destroyed by a single lapse in professional judgment.
Protection against such outcomes is, in practice, straightforward. Communication with learners should remain official and educational. Meetings should take place in visible, accountable settings. Private conversations that could be misunderstood should be avoided, as should unnecessary physical contact. Social media exchanges with learners must comply with school policies and remain entirely professional.
School administrators carry their own responsibilities in this framework: building child protection systems, conducting regular training, creating conditions that encourage reporting and responding to complaints without delay. Parents, for their part, should equip children with the language to recognise inappropriate behaviour and the confidence to report it without fear.
These regulations are not a burden on teachers. The overwhelming majority of teachers are committed professionals who dedicate their careers to shaping future generations with integrity and care. For them, Regulation 22 is simply a formal articulation of what good teachers already practise. Professional boundaries are not barriers to effective teaching. They are the foundation on which trust, safety and educational excellence are built — and without that foundation, the profession cannot stand.
Similar Posts by The Mt Kenya Times:
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER October 6, 2026
- Maraga takes anti-graft pledge to diaspora as US lobby group backs his 2027 bid
- Kenya’s gender election crisis: Will 2027 finally break the deadlock?
- Ruto pledges 50,000 teacher promotions and new career framework within two weeks
- Maharagwe number tatu: Decoding Chuka University’s campus food language
About the Author
