Funding model exposes fault lines in Kenya’s HE sector

The ongoing sporadic university students’ protests, fallout over the new funding model for students and a lecturers’ strike at several institutions since 18 September have exposed the fault lines in Kenya’s higher education sector and worsened the crisis facing institutions.

Recently, Kenya’s top universities – Kenyatta University, the University of Nairobi and Moi University – have been hit by student strikes as learners opposed the new funding model rolled out by the government. Learning in most of the other universities remains paralysed.

The funding crisis has directly contributed to ongoing unrest among university staff. The University Academic Staff Union (UASU) has therefore called for a strike, which has now started and threatens to paralyse learning activities across all 35 public universities and three constituent colleges in the country.

The strike stems from delayed salary payments and unfulfilled commitments in the 2017-21 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The parties are also in a stalemate over the 2021-25 CBA. Many public universities have not fully implemented the CBA, which promises lecturers pay rises and better working conditions.

At the heart of this impending strike is the protracted dispute over the 2021-25 CBA, which has remained unimplemented since negotiations began in September 2020.

‘No substantial progress’

UASU Secretary General Constantine Wasonga revealed that, despite 10 conciliatory meetings with the Inter-Public Universities Council’s Consultative Forum, no substantial progress has been made.

The union’s demands include significant salary increases, with proposals to raise the monthly basic salary for the lowest-paid lecturer from the current US$385 to US$664, and for the highest-paid professor from US$1,398 to US$2,254.

By 2025, these figures could reach US$971 and US$3,296, respectively. Additional demands encompass increased housing allowances, a rise in retirement age to 75 years, and a comprehensive medical scheme for staff and their dependants.

Deep-seated issues

The state of affairs has thrust Kenya’s higher education system into the spotlight, exposing deep-seated issues that go far beyond the controversial funding model.

From crippling institutional debt to accusations of tribalism in university appointments, the protests have become a lightning rod for a multitude of grievances that have long simmered beneath the surface.

At the heart of the controversy lies the New Higher Education Funding model, introduced in May 2023 as part of President William Ruto’s education reforms.

The model, which categorises students into different financial bands based on their perceived need, was touted as a solution to the funding crisis plaguing Kenyan universities.

Students in Band 1, coming from families earning less than US$41.7 monthly, receive the most substantial aid. They are eligible for 70% of their costs covered by government scholarships, 25% through loans, and an additional US$417 upkeep loan.

Band 2 students see a slight reduction in support, with 60% scholarship coverage, 30% loans, a US$382 upkeep loan, and a 10% family contribution.

For those in Band 3, the government scholarship covers half of the costs, with 30% in loans, a US$348 upkeep loan, and families contributing 20%.

Band 4 students receive 40% in scholarships and 30% in loans, with families expected to contribute the remaining 30%. Finally, Band 5 students, considered the most financially capable, with family incomes above US$835 per month, receive equal portions of 30% in scholarships and loans, with families responsible for the largest share at 40% of the total costs.

However, its implementation has been marred by accusations of unfairness and opacity. University administrators and students are openly opposed to the new model.

The government’s response was swift but appeared to do little to calm the waters. Recently, Education Cabinet Secretary Julius Migosi announced the formation of working committees to review the funding model and earlier this week this materialised.

President William Ruto appointed a 129-member national committee to review the model with the help of four sub-committees focusing on aspects such as appeals arising from the categorisation of students into eligibility bands, the structure of the loans and the cost of university programmes.

Funding model problems

“Why form a committee now, after the funding model is already in place? An assessment should have been done beforehand,” argued Wycliffe Chacha, academic secretary at Mount Kenya University’s main campus.

“We are not backing down,” declared another student leader. “If the funding model is to be implemented, we demand that Bands 4 and 5 be scrapped, and that students pursue their courses based on merit, as was the case previously.”

The model represents a tectonic shift in how Kenyan universities are financed. Moving away from blanket subsidies, the model adopts a student-centred approach, using a Means Testing Instrument to categorise students based on their financial need.

Professor Laban Ayiro, the vice-chancellor of Daystar University, in an interview with Nation last week said: “The university funding model is an attempt to address a problem, as Kenyans we need to appreciate that. This model has to be given time to incubate and then we will see the various aspects of it that might need refashioning.”

However, the implementation of this model has been far from smooth. Many students and education experts argue that it fails to accurately capture the socio-economic realities of Kenyan families.

Said Dr Fred Otieno, an education consultant in Nairobi: “While the new model aims to provide equity by funding the vulnerable fully, the real concern is in the application of the Means Testing Instrument. The vagueness in how loans and scholarships are allocated has left many families confused about their share of responsibility. This ambiguity could discourage students from poorer backgrounds from pursuing university education.”

The model’s reliance on family contributions, even if minimal, has placed an additional burden on lower-income households already struggling with high living costs. This has led to fears that the new system, rather than promoting equity, might actually widen the education gap between the rich and the poor.

Debt crisis

Compounding the challenges of the new funding model is the staggering debt crisis facing Kenyan universities. As of 2024, public universities owe about US$465 million, a figure that represents years of financial mismanagement and over-reliance on government subsidies.

Dr Alex Mwangi, an educationist and part-time lecturer who works at several universities said: “The massive debt that our universities carry reflects a long-standing issue of mismanagement and over-dependence on government funding.

“The New Funding Model might help in the long run, but debt remains a pressing issue, with institutions struggling to operate efficiently. This also leads to universities prioritising tuition fees over academic quality.”

The financial instability has forced universities to rely heavily on tuition fees to meet their obligations, making them highly vulnerable to enrolment fluctuations. This precarious situation has led to a decline in the quality of education, as institutions struggle to maintain infrastructure, purchase learning materials and retain quality staff.

Back to the lecturers’ strike, Professor Onesmus Mutio, an UASU official, argued: “We have lecturers who are teaching three or four times their capacity. Universities are stretched beyond their limits. Some institutions are offering more slots than they have the staff to teach.

“At Kisii University, for example, fewer than 400 lecturers are expected to teach more than 16,000 students. This is a serious mismatch and is leading to burnout among lecturers, which inevitably affects the quality of education.”

The issue of understaffing is not just about numbers; it’s about the quality of education being compromised. Overworked lecturers have less time for research, mentoring and staying current in their fields.

This not only affects the students’ learning experience but also hampers the universities’ ability to contribute to national development through research and innovation.

Tribalism

One of the more insidious issues affecting Kenyan universities is the influence of tribalism in appointments. The hiring and promotion of university staff have often been tainted by ethnic favouritism, with senior positions disproportionately filled by individuals from the dominant tribe of the university’s location.

The politicisation of university governance has made it difficult for these institutions to adopt reforms that are necessary for their survival in an increasingly competitive global education landscape.

Amid these systemic challenges, it’s the students who often bear the brunt of the system’s failings. While the new funding model provides substantial scholarships for the most vulnerable students, delays in disbursement and the complexity of applying for financial aid have left many in limbo.

A representative from the University of Nairobi Students Union, who did not want to be named for fear of victimisation said: “The introduction of the new funding model means that many students from vulnerable backgrounds can now afford to pursue higher education.

“However, the process of applying for scholarships and loans remains complex, and there have been delays in disbursement, leaving students in financial limbo. Some have been forced to drop out because they cannot meet their portion of tuition fees.”

Moreover, the quality of education has become a significant concern. Overworked lecturers, insufficient learning materials and dilapidated infrastructure mean that students in many public universities do not receive the level of education that was once expected.

This is particularly concerning as the country aims to improve its global competitiveness in higher education. Amid the turmoil, the response from university leadership has been notably mixed. While some vice-chancellors have thrown their weight behind the new funding model, others have expressed reservations about its implementation.

Layers of complexity

Professor Laila Abubakar from the Technical University of Mombasa, who was also a member of the Presidential Working Party on Education Reforms, noted: “We are the ones who proposed that kind of funding model. Unfortunately, the challenge is in the implementation.

“When we came up with the model, the state was supposed to pay institutions of higher learning (universities and technical and vocational education and training institutions, or TVETs) 80% and the parent coughs up only 20%.”

This divergence in opinions among university leadership adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing crisis, highlighting the need for a more unified approach to addressing the challenges facing the sector.

While much of the focus has been on public universities, the role of private institutions in this evolving landscape cannot be overlooked. Some students are opting for private universities due to perceived better learning conditions, potentially widening the gap between public and private education.

The ongoing dispute has brought to light deeper systemic issues within Kenya’s higher education sector. These include chronic underfunding, delayed salary payments, and the non-remittance of statutory and third-party deductions such as loans, pension contributions and insurance premiums.

UASU’s stance against the new university funding model adds another layer of complexity to the crisis, with the union arguing that the model needs significant adjustments to serve both learners and universities effectively.

The education sector may face a state of limbo. With approximately 30,000 university employees who could withdraw their labour, the impact on Kenya’s higher education system could be profound.

As the crisis unfolds, it’s a clarion call to stakeholders to initiate more radical reforms to salvage the future of Kenyan higher education.

This feature was updated on 19 September 2024.