Challenges and Missteps in Kenya’s University Funding Model.
Kenya’s higher education sector is currently grappling with significant challenges, primarily due to the poor implementation of a new university funding model. The situation has been exacerbated by the government’s failure to adopt a funding strategy proposed by university vice-chancellors (VCs). Interviews with VCs from both public and private universities, along with insights from government and higher education stakeholders, reveal that inadequate planning and lack of public involvement have contributed to the ongoing crisis. This article explores the root causes of the current funding issues, the shortcomings of the new model, and potential solutions for sustainable higher education financing in Kenya.
The Breakdown of the Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC) Model
The Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC) model was initially designed to allocate funds to universities based on the specific costs associated with offering various degree programs. These costs included staff salaries, facility expenses, and other institutional overheads, categorized into 18 clusters. For instance, the annual cost for humanities was set at Ksh 144,000, while dentistry programs cost Ksh 720,000. However, the new funding model discarded the DUC framework, allowing universities to set their own fees for degree programs. This decision led to significant disparities in course costs, even after applying a mandatory 15% discount.
The abrupt shift from DUC to the new model caused confusion and inconsistencies in funding. Universities found themselves in a difficult position, needing to balance the cost of providing quality education with the need to remain affordable. The lack of a unified approach led to varying costs across institutions, making the new funding model unsustainable. To address these challenges, there are ongoing discussions to engage an independent body to determine the true cost of programs across both public and private universities. This step is seen as crucial in restoring order to the higher education sector.
Issues with Student Banding and Loan Facilities
Another major flaw in the new funding model is the stratification of students into different financial bands based on household income. Under this system, students from households earning less than Ksh 5,995 receive the highest level of government funding, while those from households earning more than Ksh 120,000 receive the least. Although this approach aimed to ensure that the neediest students received adequate support, it has instead caused widespread discontent.
Follow us on X: Education Point Kenya.
Vice-chancellors argue that categorizing students in this manner has led to discrimination and has not been implemented fairly. Many students and parents have expressed frustration with the banding system, leading to a rush to secure favorable placements. The lack of an effective loan facility for all students, regardless of their financial background, has further complicated the situation. Ideally, a robust loan system with clear qualification criteria should have been introduced to ensure that all students have access to the necessary funds to pursue their education.
The banding process has also been criticized for its lack of transparency and integrity. Reports have surfaced that some students provided false information about their household incomes to qualify for higher levels of funding. In response, the government has enlisted local administrators, such as chiefs and village elders, to verify the information provided by students. This multi-agency approach aims to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and that only deserving students benefit from government support.
Missed Opportunities with Vice-Chancellors’ Proposals
The current funding crisis could have been avoided if the government had adopted the proposals put forward by university vice-chancellors. The VCs had recommended a proportional cost-sharing model involving universities, students, and the government, along with a robust loan support system. According to this plan, the flat rate of Ksh 16,000 in student fees would be increased to Ksh 24,000, with universities covering one-sixth of the course costs. Students would then receive loans to cover another sixth of the costs, with the government shouldering the remaining 50-65% of the program costs. Challenges and Missteps in Kenya’s University Funding Model.
This plan was designed to ensure that universities remained financially sustainable while still offering affordable education to students. However, the government’s decision to abandon the DUC model and implement the current funding formula has led to financial instability within universities. Many higher education stakeholders believe that the VCs’ proposals would have provided a more equitable and sustainable solution to the funding challenges facing the sector.
Read also:
- KNUT Calls Off Teachers Strike
- President Ruto to Address the Nation Amid Teachers’ Strike and Education Challenges
- Government Disburses Sh21.8 Billion in Capitation Funds Ahead of New School Term
- Teachers’ Strike to Begin Monday as Government Talks Collapse
The First Biennial Universities Funding Conference in Mombasa discussed these proposals, which also mirrored recommendations from the Higher Education Loans Board (HELB) and the Universities Fund (UF). Both bodies advocated allocating state funding only to deserving students, based on clear and transparent criteria. Unfortunately, the government’s choice to ignore these proposals has worsened the financial difficulties universities across the country now face.
Recommendations for Sustainable University Funding
The current situation highlights the need for a more sustainable approach to university funding in Kenya. First and foremost, there should be a return to a modified version of the DUC model, where the true cost of programs is accurately determined and used as a basis for funding allocations. This will help ensure that universities receive adequate support to maintain high educational standards while remaining financially viable.
Additionally, the government should reconsider the VCs’ proposal for proportional cost-sharing and loan support. By involving all stakeholders in the funding process, including students, universities, and the government, a more balanced and equitable system can be established. This approach will help reduce the financial burden on students while ensuring that universities have the resources they need to operate effectively.
The government must also improve the transparency and integrity of the student banding process. Involving local administrators in the verification process marks a positive step, but more work remains to ensure accurate and reliable data guides funding allocation. A more robust loan facility must give all students access to the funds they need to complete their education, regardless of their financial background.
Key Takeaways
In summary, the challenges facing Kenya’s higher education sector stem from poor planning, a flawed implementation strategy, and the failure to adopt sustainable funding proposals. The abandonment of the DUC model, coupled with the problematic student banding process, has led to widespread discontent and financial instability within universities. To address these issues, the government should revisit the VCs’ funding proposals, improve the transparency of the banding process, and ensure that all students have access to adequate loan facilities. By taking these steps, Kenya can establish a more sustainable and equitable university funding model that benefits all stakeholders.
Challenges and Missteps in Kenya’s University Funding Model.
Check for Daily Updates
Follow us on Telegram