Shadow of uncertainty stalks poor varsity students

The future of thousands of government-sponsored university students is uncertain following last year’s High Court ruling that declared the new student-centred funding model unconstitutional.

The decision has left universities scrambling to find alternative funding solutions for two cohorts of students as institutions resume in January.

As a result of the ruling, universities have not received any funding since October when the court temporarily suspended the implementation of the new model until the legal challenge is resolved.

Interviews with various players in the education sector show that only Sh2.8 billion of the Sh13 billion allocated for scholarships has been disbursed, leaving universities with an outstanding Sh10.2 billion in arrears.

Similarly, out of the Sh16 billion earmarked for student loans, only Sh5 billion has been released, leaving a shortfall of Sh11 billion.

The suspension of funds has sparked widespread concern about the sustainability of public universities. Daniel Mugendi, chairperson of the Vice Chancellors’ Committee, stated, “We are awaiting legal interpretation of the judgment to understand its full implications,” he said.

If the suspension persists, universities may face serious financial challenges, including the possibility of closures.

Introduced in September 2023, the student-centred funding model was meant to replace the previous Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC) system.

According to the government, the new model, which aimed to address long-standing financial inequalities in higher education, allocated funding based on students’ financial needs. 
However, it quickly faced opposition from students, university staff, and civil society organizations.

The model categorized students into five bands based on their household income, with students in lower-income bands receiving up to 100 percent government funding. 
Band 1 includes students from households earning less than Sh5,995 per month, who receive the highest level of government support. Their tuition is covered up to 95 per cent through scholarships and loans, alongside a Sh60,000 upkeep allowance, leaving families to contribute only five per cent.

For instance, a Band 1 medical student with tuition costs of Sh612,000 receives a 70 per cent scholarship (Sh428,400) and a 25 per cent loan (Sh153,000), with the family paying just Sh30,600.
Students in Band 2, from households earning between Sh5,995 and Sh23,670 per month, are eligible for 90 per cent tuition funding, while those in Band 3, with incomes between Sh23,671 and Sh70,000, receive 80 per cent coverage.

Band 4 students, from households earning Sh70,001 to Sh119,999, are offered 70 per cent tuition support, while those in Band 5, earning over Sh120,000, receive 60 per cent. Upkeep allowances also vary, from Sh60,000 for Band 1 students to Sh45,000 for Band 4 students.

While the model promises to prevent financial barriers from impeding access to higher education, its implementation exposed significant flaws.
Many students from low-income families were categorised in Bands 4 and 5, leaving them unable to afford tuition fees or facing the burden of substantial debts.

Data from the Ministry of Education revealed that out of 113,105 processed funding applications, only 10,528 students were placed in Band 1, with 11,393 in Band 2 and 20,089 in Band 3.

However, the majority — 37,764 students — fell into Band 4, while 26,137 were assigned to Band 5. The distribution raised questions about the MTI’s accuracy and fairness. Additionally, the exclusion of private university students from scholarships, granting them only loans, drew criticism for being discriminatory. Parents and students accused the government of underestimating the financial burden on households.

The issuance of new admission letters reflecting exorbitant fees further aggravated the crisis, casting doubt on the viability of the funding model.
Despite this noble intention, the model’s implementation revealed serious flaws. The

Means Testing Instrument (MTI), a tool used to assess students’ financial needs, faced criticism for its inability to accurately capture the socio-economic realities of many families.

In 2024, many students from low-income households were placed in Bands 4 and 5, which left them unable to afford tuition or saddled with large loans.
Critics argue that the MTI’s evaluation parameters, such as parental income, family size, and previous school type, were insufficient to account for the complexities of family financial situations.
 The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) condemned the model, saying, “The instrument lacks a scientific basis and excludes many students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.”