The High Court Suspends New University Funding Model

In a precedent-setting verdict, the High Court has shelved the implementation of the new university funding model in the country. This comes as a very big setback to the numerous reforms the government has made and intends to make in the higher education finance sector. The suspension comes on the heels of a court case that was filed by a number of parties, including students’ organizations and associations of staff in universities, who were expressing worries on how the model would affect access to education and the future of public universities.

Background of the New University Funding Model

The new funding model was designed in the middle of the year 2024 and constituted a change from block funding system; in a block funding system lapsed funds are allocated for each university in relation to the total number of students. The government wanted to move away from simply providing inflationary funding and wanted to develop a need based system which was performance targeted, which would tier funding to the needs of students, the performance of institutions and keyed in particularly to certain types of courses. It was perceived that this would enhance responsibility, quality of education and relation of university programs to the available employment opportunities.

In this model, students were to be identified and categorized into four levels depending on their affordability: vulnerable, extremely needy, needy, and less needy. It would be in this respect that funding will be allocated, where the most vulnerable will be well taken care of through State scholarships, loans, and bursaries more than other categories. This was meant to facilitate entry into tertiary education for those coming from poor backgrounds who would not wish to face a high debt burden, while wealthier individuals would pay higher fees.

Notwithstanding the expectations of the authorities, the new regime instigated some debate and contention in society.

Stakeholder Concerns

Opponents of the model, particularly university administrators, student organizations, and those in education, expressed a number of issues about the modifications, particularly their implementation and equity. One of the most evident positions against the model was that it would entrench existing classes by restricting access to higher education. Students unions voiced concerns that the new arrangement was likely to impact negatively on students from the middle class, who would not qualify for adequate financial support but would still find it difficult to pay for university education.

“We support reforms, however we urge the government to put measures that would not make it difficult for qualified students to access higher education opportunities. These were the words of the president of KUSO. “We are worried that a large number of students will have to quit school due to insufficient financial aid to cater for the escalating costs.”

University leaders further expressed their worries regarding the viability of public institutions in the new scenario over long periods. Several institutions are funded externally by the government to a very large extent, hence the administrators were concerned that the embracing of performance-based funding would create budgetary risks. This, it was anticipated, would necessitate retrenchment, withdrawal of some programs and ultimately compromise the standards of education. Some even cautioned that certain even younger or smaller in size universities might be shut down, owing to insufficient funds.

Moreover, there was apprehension on the fairness of the criteria employed for classifying students in various financial brackets, where critics contended that the government did not have the capacity to make such classifications. This, they argued, would cause inefficiencies and unfairness in the distribution of resources

Court’s Ruling

In consideration of these issues, the High Court ordered a stay of the application of the new funding regime pending the outcome of further legal proceedings. The court stated that there were adequate reasons to consider the risk of the model undermining students’ education, and whether stakeholders were appropriately consulted before the implementation of the policy.

The applicants submitted that the State was about to introduce the model and funding mechanism without having a thorough analysis on the implications and influence on students and the universities at large. They also highlighted that certain groups like the students and the university management had not been consulted. The High Court’s judgement confirmed these concerns noting that a new funding model could not be put into force until its advantages and disadvantages had been fully assessed.

The Court also ordered the Ministry of Education and Treasurer to elaborate on how they would work out the issues presented by the petitioners in a report. Namely, explaining the process of student classifications, the way universities would be reimbursed to some extent for possible deficits in authorized funding and how the particular structure would provide all students with equal educational opportunities within the system regardless of their economic status.

Responses Concerning the Hibernation

On the other hand, the hibernation of the new funding guidelines has always yielded different opinions from different quarters. Ng’enda said that student organizations rejoiced with the ruling of the court as it was a win in their struggle for equal education. “This is rather encouraging. The government should go back to the ideas and seek contributions from all parties before making such a big change,” added KUSO’s spokesperson.

University administrations have also welcomed the decision as most of the institutions were facing serious budgetary implications for the proposed model. “We are thankful to the court that it has taken cognizance of the potential impact of the policy on our institutions and students,” commented a vice-chancellor of a leading public university.

Government officials, on the other hand, were disappointed and defended the new funding model, saying that it was meant to eliminate loopholes in the current system. The Ministry of Education said that the performance-based model would help align university programs with the needs of the economy while targeting those who truly deserve financial aid. They promised compliance with the court’s decision and wider consultations with stakeholders.

What’s Next?

The suspension of the new funding model by the court marks only the beginning of what is most probably going to be a protracted legal and policy contestation over the future of university financing in Kenya. This would see the government retreat back to the drawing board for review amidst views by students, universities, and other interest groups. Meanwhile, public universities would have to keep operating on an existing block funding system until such time as a final decision is made.

As the court case drags on, one thing is clear: the future of university funding will be among the most critical issues to dominate Kenya’s education calendar. The students and institutions thus hope that any amendments that might be made to the funding model give consideration to access, equity, and sustainability of Kenya’s higher education system.