Statistical analyses reveal a noticeable gender chasm in PhD registrations and graduations.
The university funding landscape in Kenya has undergone significant transformation under different administrations, each adopting policies in response to the challenges of their time.
From President Daniel Moi’s call for universities to find alternative revenue streams, through President Mwai Kibaki’s expansion of Module Two programmes, to the more recent student-targeted funding model introduced by President William Ruto, these policies have had profound impacts on the financial stability of universities and access to education.
This article critically examines these approaches, especially in the context of former Education Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i’s reforms during the President Uhuru Kenyatta era, and offers potential solutions to the current crisis.
Moi Era: Call for alternative funding
During Moi’s tenure, the reduction in government funding forced universities to seek alternative sources of revenue. Moi urged universities to innovate and find new ways to generate income, such as through commercial activities and partnerships with industry. However, the infrastructure to support such initiatives was lacking, resulting in a period of financial strain and deteriorating educational quality.
Kibaki Era: Expansion of Module Two Programmes
Under Kibaki, the introduction and expansion of Module Two programmes (parallel degree programmes) provided a significant boost to university finances. These programmes allowed universities to admit self-sponsored students who could afford to pay higher fees, thereby stabilising their financial situation. However, this also led to inequities in access to higher education, as wealthier students had greater opportunities, leaving economically disadvantaged students to compete for fewer government-sponsored slots.
Uhuru Kenyatta Era: Matiang’i’s reforms and their consequences
Mr Kenyatta’s administration, through Dr Matiang’i, sought to standardise university admissions and curb the commercialisation of higher education. One of Dr Matiang’i’s significant policy interventions was lowering the university entry grade from a B+ to a C+, which dramatically increased the number of students qualifying for university education. While this move aligned with the goal of increasing access to higher education, it failed to anticipate the funding implications of a larger student body.
The influx of students put immense pressure on already strained university resources. At the same time, Dr Matiang’i’s efforts to dismantle the Module Two programmes, which had been a crucial revenue source for universities, left these institutions financially vulnerable. The unintended consequence was a severe funding shortfall that has persisted, contributing to the current financial instability of universities.
Ruto Administration: Introducing the student-targeted funding model
In response to the ongoing challenges, President Ruto’s administration introduced a student-targeted funding model. This model aims to categorise students into different funding bands based on financial need, with the intention of ensuring that those who require the most support receive adequate funding.
However, this model’s rollout has been controversial, with many students deferring their studies due to confusion and delays in funding allocation. The new funding model, while a step towards addressing inequities in higher education, does not address the root cause of financial instability in universities. Without additional revenue streams, universities will continue to struggle to provide quality education to an increasing number of students.
The impact of Matiang’i’s policies: A delicate balance
The decision to lower the university entry grade and the dismantling of Module Two programmes under Dr Matiang’i has had long-term repercussions. The current government faces a delicate situation: it cannot easily reverse the policy of lower entry grades without sparking public outcry, nor can it fail students to control the numbers, as this would have far-reaching consequences for their futures, including limiting their opportunities for higher education abroad or in private institutions.
The challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that ensures educational quality and equitable access while maintaining financial sustainability. Reintroducing fee-paying programmes similar to Module Two, alongside the targeted funding model, could provide a solution. This hybrid approach would allow universities to generate additional revenue to support students from lower-income backgrounds.
Toward a sustainable future for university funding
The evolution of university funding in Kenya reflects the ongoing struggle to balance financial sustainability with equitable access to education. While each administration has made efforts to address these challenges, the current situation calls for a more integrated approach.
