Kenya’s higher education NFM (HEF) was a result of one of the proposals made by the Presidential Working Party on Education Reforms, a team instituted by the President in 2023. In one of its 14 proposals, the team recommended the introduction of a new financing model that would sustainably fund university students according to their unique needs.
It is argued that the previous model, the Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC), where students paid for accommodation and food while the government sent a capitation of about Kshs. 80,000/- per student directly to the university, was not inclusive. It is said that it did not consider the unique needs of the students nor the cost of the varied university programs.
The NFM, consisting of a mix of scholarship (the Universities Fund Scholarship) and loan (from the Higher Education Loans Board), was then introduced to resolve these anomalies. Students are funded according to cost of the program, rather than a blanket amount across programs.
It is notable that only students who have been placed in public universities can apply for the Universities Fund Scholarship (UFS). They can and are also encouraged to apply for a Higher Education Loans Board (HELB) loan.
Those placed in private universities can only apply for a HELB loan. The UFS is divided into 5 bands consisting of categorization of needs: from vulnerable, extremely needy, needy, and less needy. Students are placed into bands according to their level of need.
The UFS provides between 30-70% funding to students according to their needs while the HELB loan covers between 25-30% of the fees. The family is also expected to contribute to the financing, according to its socio-economic status.
The determination of the funding percentage to be provided is done using the Means Testing Instrument (MTI). The MTI determines need in accordance with family income, family level of education, family’s socio-economic background, social demographic data and affirmative action.
When students apply for the UFS, they are requested to provide certain documentation, e.g., parents’/guardian’s information including KRA PIN, death certificate if parent(s) is/are deceased, letter of support of the student was sponsored while in high school and any other helpful documentation.
Using the MTI, students are then placed in specific bands according to the level of need. There is an appeal process for students who feel that they were not appropriately placed.
While this process appears very seamless, why is there so much hue and cry? The challenges that seem to bedevil the process can be categorized into three: system, criteria and communication.
System challenges in HEF categorization
The system would need to be refined in order to make the application process smoother for the students. There have been complaints of malfunctioning of the portal, with uploaded documentation not reflecting on students’ accounts.
There is worry that such anomalies would unfairly disadvantage such students when a determination is being made regarding which band to place them. Students with deceased parents and mothers who are unemployed have found themselves in bands 3 or 4 in spite of uploading death certificates and other supporting documentation.
The Universities Education Fund would need to re-look the capacity and functioning of their technology so that it can be more user friendly and reduce these pain points for applicants.
Criteria
The criteria for banding of students seems not to be clear. How does one student end up getting placed in Band 1, for example, when he/she has the same set of circumstances as his/her fellow student, who is placed in Band 3?
There have been such cases happening and these are recipes for tension and conflict among students. The NFM is championed as being student-centred; a model that is inclusive and leaves no student behind.
If this is the case, there needs to be a very clear and transparent criteria that instils confidence in the applicants that their socio-economic situation will be objectively considered, and that they shall be consequently placed in the correct band.
The communication gap
The communication element has been another major challenge of this funding process. While the NFM website exists, the information therein is not very clear.
For instance, the Frequently Asked Questions page, mentions the MTI. It states that the MTI “is a reliable scientific method used to determine the student’s level of financial need by using proxy indicators.”
Also Read: Govt Sends Chiefs to Villages as Needy Students Miss Out on HELB
This is all the information provided on this page and any other pages on the website. One would then be curious to ask what the terms “proxy indicators” mean and what these indicators look like.
A model that is inclusive should have plain language that can be understood by regular citizens, including the applicants themselves. For a long while, even before the introduction of the NFM, many students have been going to cyber cafes to make their applications.
This process has been a huge challenge to students especially those who do not have internet at home and more so, are not technologically savvy.
They become dependent on the staff at cyber cafes who are not fully conversant with the application process. Some of the staff make the applications for the students using their own personal emails and then hold the students ransom by demanding hefty payments to check the status of the applications.
These are unfortunate scenarios because the most affected students are those in low-income and rural areas. Already these students are disadvantaged because of their socio-economic status.
It is therefore a tragedy for them to be locked out of funding opportunities because of unclear and unregulated application processes. The schools can come in here as a critical partner in addressing such challenges.
Also Read: HEF: Role Chiefs Will Play in Process of Recategorization of University Students
Guided and coordinated by the Ministry of Education and in partnership with the Universities Education Fund, schools can be sites where students and parents receive accurate information through discussion forums and workshops on how to effectively apply for university/TVET funding as well as other funding such as the those from the county government, Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).
These forums and workshops can also provide opportunities for the Universities Education Fund to get regular feedback on how well the funding process is working and gaps that need to be addressed.
As we continue to debate the pros and cons of the NFM, lets strengthen the system, the criteria and the communication elements of the funding process so that we can truly actualize the vision of inclusivity.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel for real-time news updates:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaB3k54HltYFiQ1f2i2C
