Debate Over Bursary Consolidation Sparks Controversy in Kenya

The National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF) Committee has launched a vigorous campaign opposing the proposed consolidation of public-funded bursary schemes into a unified model. The debate over this proposal has intensified, drawing attention to the ongoing concerns about the efficiency and fairness of public education financing in Kenya.

The NG-CDF Committee’s response was unveiled on Thursday, amid a broader discussion on the overlap of functions among public entities that fund education. The issue has gained prominence following a National Assembly caucus’s consideration of merging various bursary funds. This proposal aims to address issues related to the newly introduced university funding model, which has been met with mixed reactions.

Musa Sirma, the Chairperson of the NG-CDF Committee and Member of Parliament for Eldama Ravine, spearheaded the campaign against the consolidation. Sirma highlighted the NG-CDF’s pivotal role in supporting underprivileged households by covering school fees and enhancing learning infrastructure nationwide. At an NG-CDF bursary distribution event in Dagoretti-North Constituency, Sirma urged the public to back the retention of the fund, emphasizing its positive impact on education.

Sirma criticized the proposal to abolish NG-CDF as being “ill-intended,” arguing that it undermines the critical support provided to those in need. His sentiments were echoed by Beatrice Elachi, the Dagoretti-North MP, who called on parents to ensure timely payment of fee balances. Elachi stressed that while NG-CDF bursaries are crucial, they are not a panacea for all educational financing challenges. Her remarks came in response to Chief Justice Martha Koome’s proposal advocating for free higher education to resolve issues related to bursary overlaps and misclassification under the new funding scheme.

Chief Justice Koome’s proposal calls for the consolidation of all bursary funds at both national and sub-national levels to mobilize resources for free tertiary education. Koome expressed concern that the new funding model, which categorizes students into different bands based on a socio-economic assessment of their families, could disenfranchise some students. She noted that the model risks placing students from well-to-do families in higher funding bands while those from poorer backgrounds might receive inadequate support.

Koome’s proposal suggests merging bursaries administered by Governors, Members of Parliament, and Members of County Assembly to streamline funding for tertiary institutions. This move aims to address the disparities in the current funding structure and ensure that resources are allocated more equitably.

Earlier discussions among lawmakers focused on amalgamating various funds and bursaries to address a perceived funding crisis in higher learning institutions. The proposed reforms include consolidating the Higher Education and Loans Board (HELB) with other funds, such as scholarships and bursaries provided by local and national legislators.

The new funding model employs eight variables, including parental background, gender, course type, marginalization, disability, family size, and composition, to determine students’ needs and appropriate funding. However, this model has faced criticism from parents and students, with many reporting miscategorization and being placed in higher bands than warranted.

As the debate continues, the future of Kenya’s public-funded bursary schemes remains uncertain. The conflicting views underscore the complexity of addressing educational financing in a way that balances fairness, efficiency, and adequate support for all students. The ongoing discussions will likely shape the future of educational funding in Kenya, highlighting the need for a solution that truly meets the needs of the nation’s learners.