[ad_1]
On September 16, President William Ruto appointed a 129-member committee to address the problems fueling resistance to the new university funding model.
The committee, headed by Professor Japheth Micheni Ntiba- a former Principal Secretary, is mandated to review the new funding model, analyse students’ appeals, assess the structure of student loans and evaluate the cost of programmes.
The committee’s appointment follows a wave of resistance from various stakeholders, including university students, staff and parents.
The model’s mean testing instrument (MTI), which uses family income and socio-economic factors to classify applicants into five bands, has been criticised for misclassifying students. This has resulted in many needy students being allocated less funding.
Under the new model introduced in May 2023, funding for students in public universities constitutes a blend of government scholarships, loans, and household contributions. The proportion of each component varies with students’ bands.
During the launch, President Ruto lauded the new model as student-centered, and capable of fixing persistent financial crisis in public universities.
The new model replaced the Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC) implemented in 2016/2017. Under DUC, the government of Kenya provided block funding to public universities based on student enrollment and programmes offered by the university.
The programmes were bundled into 14 clusters to determine costs, which were set from Sh144,000 to Sh600,000. The government was to provide 80 percent of the cost, while the 20 percent was to come from payments by students, research and other income-generating activities.
Data from the Universities Funding Board reveals that from 2018/2019, there was a persistent inadequate funding to public universities by the government. The deficit increased from 13.6 percent in 2019 to 30.49 percent in 2022/2023. This occurred despite the student enrollment, rising by more than 50 percent during the same period.
The funding shortfall was worsened by the death of self-sponsored programmes after the government’s decision in 2017 to place all students who met the minimum university entry requirements. In contrast, in 2015, only 40 percent of qualified students were placed in public universities, forcing others to either apply as self-sponsored students or attend private institutions.
Way forward
In my view, guaranteed funding is crucial in access to higher education more than the intricacies of banding. Article 26.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights requires that higher education shall be equally accessible to all based on merit.
Therefore, all funding applicants should have access to 100 percent of programme costs, apportioned between scholarships and/or student loans, based on the level of financial needs.
For instance, applicants who get a scholarship equal to 30 percent of the programme cost should be guaranteed a loan covering the remaining 70 percent of the programme cost.
Second, funding to applicants placed in band 1 (extremely needy) should be 100 percent scholarship to promote access to education by poor families.
There is no rationale in asking students from households declared to be earning less than Sh72,000 annually to pay household contributions, which in some instances exceed their annual income (e.g. for medicine course it is Sh122,400).
Besides, fully paid merit-based scholarships should be initiated to cater for a given number of top performers selected to join disciplines that are strategic to national development. This is to promote merit while ensuring development of scarce skills in key areas.
Third, family contributions from students within the same band should be equal regardless of the programmes. Pegging household contribution on programme costs puts a heavy burden on low-income earners admitted to study expensive courses, denying them equal opportunities to access programmes of choice.
For example, a student taking Bachelor of Medicine and placed in band 1, is required to pay a household contribution of Sh122,400 per year. This is not only 1.7 times more than the annual household’s acknowledged income of Sh72,000, but also 2.5 times higher than the Sh48,960 to be paid by a Bachelor of Arts student placed in band 5 (high-income).
Fourth, programme costs need to be rationalised to promote transparency and fair pricing. Due to high admission rates, many programmes are admitting above capacity, enabling universities to benefit from economies of scale. This should translate to lower programme costs.
While the government expects the new model to solve the over five-year financial crisis in public universities, it is unrealistic to expect that it achieved in less than three years. For instance, universities might resort to charging high tuition fees to pay off old debts, unfairly burdening current students.
Fifth, the MIT has been cited for wrong classification of students, suggesting that the instrument’s parameters do not accurately capture households’ financial abilities.
Further scientific studies could be conducted to assess its predictive power. This would help identify components that need adjustment.
Overall, the committee has an opportunity to redeem the new funding model, but the success will also rely on government’s commitment to fully and promptly remit allocated funds to both students and universities.
[ad_2]
