Poor planning, integrity issues mar universities' funding model

Graduates at Maseno University during the 18th graduation on December 21, 2018. [Denish Ochieng, Standard]

It is now emerging that failure to adopt a funding plan proposed by university vice-chancellors, as well as a poor implementation strategy of the new university funding model led to the present crisis.

Interviews with vice-chancellors (VCs) in both public and private universities, insiders in government and higher education sector players pointed at a poor implementation plan for the new model.

Vice-chancellors who spoke to The Sunday Standard, in confidence, cited lack of adequate public participation to bring students and parents on board before the new model was rolled out.

Also faulted was the decision to entirely drop the Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC), which VCs argued, should have been modelled for sustainability.

DUC is the annual cost of providing a particular degree programme per student, taking into account staff costs, facility costs, and other institutional overheads.

The DUC lumped specific cost of programmes into clusters of 18 ranging from the lowest being Sh144,000 for humanities and the highest Sh720,000 for dentistry.

However, it emerged that a decision that individual universities would again determine the amount to charge for their degree programmes under the new funding formula stirred the funding plan.

With this, universities uploaded varying costs of the courses with huge disparities, even after the 15 per cent discount requirement.

The Sunday Standard established that there are fresh plans to engage universities to reduce cost of programmes to make the new funding model sustainable.

It also emerged that there are proposals to engage an independent body to establish the true cost of programmes across public and private universities.

“This problem was already sorted by DUC. What they needed to do was to make this DUC work in a sustainable manner,” said the VC of a public university.

These factors, together with a poor implementation strategy of the new funding model, VCs said have caused chaos in the university sector.

The VCs argue that the stratified banding of students was a noble idea but was implemented wrongly.

“It was wrong to term some students as poor and needy and lump them in one band and at the same time refer to some as less needy and ask them to pay more,” said a VC who declined to be named for the sensitivity of the matter.

The VC said an effective loan facility should have been made available for all students, with a strong criterion for qualification. The VC said the banding strategy reeks of discrimination with many oversights during the identification of needy households. 

“Students were not even involved early enough to ventilate on this matter so that they are onboarded. Involving them in the process now is a bit of a challenge and that is why you see these rejections,” said another VC.

The new formula grouped students or households into five bands. Students from homes earning less than Sh5,995 will get the highest amount of government funding, and students who will get the least government funding will be from homes earning above Sh120,000.

Some VCs said banding of students is the source of discontent, pushing students and parents to scramble for favourable listing.

Last week, Head of Public Service Felix Koskei, attributed the problem to "lack of integrity in the classification process."

"A substantial number of students were declaring parental incomes below Sh20,000, but our verification efforts revealed that they were being dishonest," Mr Koskei said.

Insiders however argue that failure to involve government officials such as chiefs, assistant chiefs and village elders to collect data was a major oversight.

On Friday, Education Cabinet Secretary Julius Migos said school heads, chiefs and other administrative officers will now be tasked with verification of appeals details.

“To ensure that all applicants are categorised fairly and that no one is deprived of deserved funding, we are working with officers from the National Government Administration Office, in a multi-agency approach,” said Migos.

He announced after it emerged that students lied about their details to qualify for favourable funding.

Migos said: “These officers will assist in verifying the information provided by applicants from their respective jurisdictions, across all the 106,600 villages in the country.”

So far, some 12,000 students have appealed their placement in various bands and are seeking a review.

The Sunday Standard has established that the present funding mess could have been avoided if the government adopted a proposal by the VCs.

The vice-chancellors pitched for a proportional cost sharing between the universities, students, and government and a loan support plan.

Under the plan, the age-long flat rate of Sh16,000 students’ fees were to be increased by Sh8,000. All students would then be required to pay a flat rate of Sh24,000.

In addition to this, universities would then be asked to foot a sixth of the course cost.

Another one-sixth of the course cost would be given to students in the form of loans, on a needs basis, subject to the means testing instrument (MT) criteria.

The government would then shoulder the balance of course cost, which was computed to constitute about 50-65 per cent of the programme cost, with an average of 55 per cent.

The funding plan was however pegged on the DUC, which has since been dropped and a new formula rolled out.

These are some of the radical proposals adopted last year by the top university managers and Ministry of Education officials at the close of the First Biennial Universities Funding Conference in Mombasa.

The meeting brought together all vice-chancellors of public and private universities, principals of constituent colleges, and government agencies involved in funding higher learning institutions.

Heads of the Universities Fund, Higher Education Loans Board, Kenya Universities and Colleges Central Placement Board, and budgeting officials from the National Treasury and Planning also attended the meeting.

These proposals also mirrored part of the recommendations presented by Helb and Universities Fund (UF) to the Presidential Working Party on Education Reforms.

The two bodies strongly recommended that only deserving students to get State funding disbursed through a clear criterion that focuses on needy cases only.

Similar funding proposals were also contained in two critical documents - the Sessional Paper, 'Reforming Education and Training for Sustainable Development', and another document prepared by the Vice Chancellors Committee.

The Sessional Paper proposed that universities reduce their dependence on the government by diversifying their sources of income and ensuring more efficient and cost-effective use of resources.

The VCs document, ‘Strategies for funding staff compensation in public universities in Kenya,’ was tabled in the National Assembly Education Committee in 2019.

Vice-chancellors who spoke to The Sunday Standard argued that these earlier proposals would have been sustainable and efficient if adopted.