- Kenya’s current higher education financing system has faced delays, debt burdens, and eroded public confidence.
- Government plans to merge HELB, UF, and TVET Fund into TEFA, shifting from income‑based to universal funding.
- Experts warn TEFA must address root causes: adequate funding, transparency, and equitable access, rather than repackage inefficiencies.
The government’s proposal to dissolve the Higher Education Loans Board (HELB), the Universities Fund (UF) and the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Fund, and replace them with a single Tertiary Education Funding Authority (TEFA), has reopened one of Kenya’s most sensitive policy debates: how the country should finance higher education. Coupled with plans to abandon the contentious income-based funding model introduced in 2023 in favour of a universal funding framework, the proposal has been presented as a decisive response to a crisis that has left thousands of students uncertain about their academic future.
Yet beyond the language of reform lies a more fundamental question: Is Kenya addressing the underlying problem, or merely redesigning its administrative structure?
For years, higher education financing has been marked by uncertainty, delays and growing public frustration. University and TVET students have repeatedly complained of late tuition disbursements, delayed upkeep allowances, inconsistent categorisation under the needs-based funding model and prolonged appeals processes that often extend beyond an academic semester. Many students have been locked out of examinations, forced to defer their studies or left with mounting debts simply because government support did not arrive when it was needed most.
These realities have eroded public confidence in a system that was intended to expand access to education, not restrict it.
ALSO READ:
St. Patrick’s Iten dormitory fire: Seven students plead guilty to arson as investigations intensify
The proposal to establish TEFA acknowledges that the current framework has struggled to meet expectations. Bringing HELB, the Universities Fund and the TVET Fund under one institution could, in theory, eliminate duplication of functions, reduce administrative costs and create a more coordinated approach to financing universities and technical institutions. A single authority could also simplify application procedures, improve accountability and strengthen data management.
However, institutional mergers do not automatically translate into improved service delivery. Kenya has seen numerous government agencies undergo restructuring, only for the same inefficiencies to re-emerge under different names. Without adequate funding, competent leadership, strong governance and transparent operational systems, TEFA risks becoming another bureaucracy managing the same persistent challenges under a new identity.
Perhaps the most significant proposal is the planned shift from the current income-based funding model to a universal funding approach. Since its introduction, the variable scholarship and loan model has attracted widespread criticism from students, parents, universities and policy experts. Many families argued that the government’s financial categorisation failed to reflect their actual economic circumstances, leaving genuinely needy students classified as capable of paying fees they could not afford.
ALSO READ:
KNUT reports progress on State House resolutions as promotions fund doubles, CPG review completed
Education financing should inspire confidence, not confusion. A funding model whose beneficiaries spend months appealing classifications cannot be considered sustainable. If the government intends to restore public trust, the universal funding approach must guarantee fairness, transparency and predictability. Every qualified student deserves an opportunity to pursue higher education without constant uncertainty over whether tuition or upkeep funds will be disbursed.
Equally important is the question of sustainability. Establishing TEFA without sufficient financial resources would merely centralise scarcity. The authority cannot succeed if it inherits the financial constraints that have undermined the institutions it seeks to replace. Real reform should focus less on changing institutional architecture and more on ensuring that adequate budgetary allocations are consistently provided.
The conversation must also extend beyond universities. Students enrolled in institutions such as the Kenya Medical Training College (KMTC), teacher training colleges and other accredited tertiary institutions continue to raise legitimate concerns about equitable access to government funding. These institutions produce the healthcare professionals, teachers, technicians and skilled workers that sustain Kenya’s economy. Any new funding authority must recognise that national development depends on supporting all deserving tertiary learners, rather than favouring selected institutions.
Another difficult but necessary conversation concerns the fragmented bursary system. Every year, billions of shillings are distributed through the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), county governments, governors’ bursaries, Women Representatives’ funds and various local education support programmes. While these initiatives have assisted many learners, they have also created duplication, inconsistent eligibility criteria and allegations of political patronage.
The establishment of TEFA presents an opportunity to rethink this fragmented approach. A harmonised national tertiary funding framework, operating under clear legal guidelines and transparent digital systems, could reduce duplication, eliminate wastage and ensure that financial assistance reaches students based on genuine need rather than political influence or geographical advantage.
Public scepticism surrounding the proposal is therefore understandable. Kenyans have grown increasingly cautious about reforms that appear promising at launch but fail to deliver measurable improvements. Confidence will not be restored through legislation alone. It will require transparent governance, independent oversight, timely disbursement of funds, efficient digital systems, regular public accountability reports and meaningful engagement with students, universities and training institutions.
ALSO READ:
Police detain Grade 9 student for allegedly killing classmate in Migori
Ultimately, the success of TEFA will not be determined by the name of the institution or the number of agencies it absorbs. Its legacy will depend on whether it improves the lived experiences of students across Kenya. If learners continue to miss classes because fees remain unpaid, if universities continue to grapple with financial instability and if deserving students continue to abandon their education due to delayed funding, then TEFA will have achieved little beyond administrative reorganisation.
Kenya’s higher education sector deserves more than cosmetic reform. It deserves a financing system that is adequately funded, transparent, efficient, equitable and student-centred. The proposed Tertiary Education Funding Authority has the potential to become a landmark reform—but only if it addresses the root causes of the crisis instead of simply replacing familiar institutions with a new acronym.
The future of Kenya’s universities, TVET institutions and the millions of young people who depend on them will not be secured by changing names. It will be secured by fulfilling the government’s constitutional obligation to make higher education accessible, affordable and reliable for every deserving student.
By Hillary Muhalya
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
>>> Click here to stay ahead with the latest national news.
